Map Size Thread

[Raavi]

I'll just post this here again. Note that 5 blocks is 8 / 9.

 

Edited May 18, 2013 by Raavi

[GTAfan786]

 

Its not hard to believe Kesta - its just that the shape of the map is a irregular polygon and large chunks of the sea - mountains eat into that virtual rectangle of 2.4 by 2.8 leading to a smaller area. Those figures are very likely the extreme dimensions of the city.

They said they THINK it was around 180 degrees, but had NO idea what was behind the hidden part, which is still yet to be revealed. When they jumped from the Heli as Franklin, they ONLY saw the City of LS and the Ocean and an apparent air base as rockstar told them and nothing else, maybe a bit of surrounding areas of MT chilliad, and nothing else. The draw distance was also improved, thats another factor.

[GKP]

This website is very good for working out areas of irregular polygons.

 

http://www.sketchandcalc.com/

 

Perhaps someone would enter the 'accepted' map shape into it.

[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.

 

Raavi - I would estimate around 8 blocks to the hills. This pic is probably a better example.

[The Scottish Guy]

Wow! I don't visit this forum in nearly two days, and I return to see this thread has obtained nearly 30 more pages!

 

 

Excellent sh*t!

 

 

Anybody got anything here besides what something looks like?

 

Er, I think visual evidence is probably the best and most accurate evidence other than a confirmed area mileage.

 

 

Because as objective as that is I'll take what people who have played the game and developed it say over the expert opinions of people here.

 

On the contrary, I'd rather take what my own eyes are visually displaying to me rather than somebody else's vocal, vague assessment.

 

 

*still waiting on that hilarious RDF pic*

 

Here ya go...

 

 

It's great isn't it?

 

 

By my diagnosis of this thread and the V section in general, resorting to aggression and name calling is often the only way get a point across. Otherwise you will be ignored by those who are too busy responding to the name calling/aggression brought against them and those who want to conveniently forget your argument as it holds too much merit.

 

Indeed. But as you alluded to, this is the unfortunate reality of the majority of the V section which evidently appears to be heavily populated with underage kids who couldn't address a valid and exceptional point if it smacked them in the bollocks.

 

 

CVG stated 1/8 to 1/10.....

For the last time, that was an ESTIMATE.

 

As was the "Los Santos definitely covers more square mileage than Liberty City" statement that some members of the RDF insist on repeatedly using to back up their "concrete" claims.

 

 

GKP, you're just an idiot. Your calculations are wrong, face the facts.

 

 

CVG estimated that,...

 

Edited May 18, 2013 by The Scottish Guy

[Raavi]

 

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.

 

Raavi - I would estimate around 8 blocks to the hills. This pic is probably a better example.

That's not that small to be honest, actually quite nice. But I'm guessing you don't agree.

 

Please note that I'm solely talking about the westside area and not the entire LS part.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Raavi

[kesta195]

Its not hard to believe Kesta - its just that the shape of the map is a irregular polygon and large chunks of the sea - mountains eat into that virtual rectangle of 2.4 by 2.8 leading to a smaller area. Those figures are very likely the extreme dimensions of the city.

 

I have no doubt the extreme left to right distance is 2.8 if not 3 miles.

Ok, so taking into account the 'extremes' of Liberty City it was 6.25sq miles. Los Santos including it's extremes add up to approx. 6.75 miles. Also consider that a higher percentage of LC was water. Most of LS is land.

[GTAfan786]

 

Wow! I don't visit this forum in nearly two days, and I return to see this thread has obtained nearly 30 more pages!

 

 

Excellent sh*t!

 

 

Anybody got anything here besides what something looks like?

 

Er, I think visual evidence is probably the best and most accurate evidence other than a confirmed area mileage.

 

 

Because as objective as that is I'll take what people who have played the game and developed it say over the expert opinions of people here.

 

On the contrary, I'd rather take what my own eyes are visually displaying to me rather than somebody else's vocal, vague assessment.

 

 

*still waiting on that hilarious RDF pic*

 

Here ya go...

 

 

It's great isn't it?

 

 

By my diagnosis of this thread and the V section in general, resorting to aggression and name calling is often the only way get a point across. Otherwise you will be ignored by those who are too busy responding to the name calling/aggression brought against them and those who want to conveniently forget your argument as it holds too much merit.

 

Indeed. But as you alluded to, this is the unfortunate reality of the majority of the V section which evidently appears to be heavily populated with underage kids who couldn't address a valid and exceptional point if it smacked them in the bollocks.

 

 

CVG stated 1/8 to 1/10.....

For the last time, that was an ESTIMATE.

 

As was the "Los Santos definitely covers more square mileage than Liberty City" statement that some members of the RDF insist of repeatedly using to back up their "concrete" claims.

 

 

GKP, you're just an idiot. Your calculations are wrong, face the facts.

 

 

CVG estimated that,...

 

I'm not sure why you're highlighting my posts, but i think its because you like to kiss GKP's ass because both of you think your calculations are facts, when it's clearly the opposite. Also, when i said CVG estimated, i meant that the 1/8 they claimed was an estimate because they even said it themselves. So stop embarrassing yourself. Also, you are obviously a retard if you think the statement from GI is false. LS DOES cover more square footage than LC.

[GKP]

If we are assuming 6.something sq miles of city , that would mean there is DOUBLE the city of LC !

 

DOUBLE !

 

NO ,....we are barely getting the same urban area of LC.Barely. I will be vindicated on the 17.9.

 

 

786 - CVG are not idiots, they would NOT have said 1/8 to 1/10 if they were off by a factor of 2 !..

[kesta195]

If we are assuming 6.something sq miles of city , that would mean there is DOUBLE the city of LC !

 

DOUBLE !

 

NO ,....we are barely getting the same urban area of LC.Barely. I will be vindicated on the 17.9.

No. 6.7sq miles of city AND water. But since a higher proportion of LC was water, then the land area of LS is likely to be much larger.

[GTAfan786]

 

If we are assuming 6.something sq miles of city , that would mean there is DOUBLE the city of LC !

 

DOUBLE !

 

NO ,....we are barely getting the same urban area of LC.Barely. I will be vindicated on the 17.9.

 

 

786 - CVG are not idiots, they would NOT have said 1/8 to 1/10 if they were off by a factor of 2 !..

But we aren't saying the city ALONE without water is 6.75, it is WITH water. The land area would still be larger than LC considering LC was literally a single state surrounded by endless ocean.

Edited May 18, 2013 by GTAfan786

[The Scottish Guy]

 

I'm not sure why you're highlighting my posts, but i think its because you like to kiss GKP's ass because both of you think your calculations are facts

 

I've never stated anything as fact my friend. I've merely acknowledged my observing concerns of LS not being what I'd hoped for, nor what I expected from the screens released so far...

 

 

when it's clearly the opposite.

 

...whereas that is stating fact.

 

 

Also, you are obviously a retard...

 

(how profound)

 

 

...if you think the statement from GI is false.

 

Until somebody from GI gets the opportunity to play the game and take the time to carefully measure and calculate the area mass and give us it's confirmation, I'm going to take anything they say regarding this issue as false.

 

 

So stop embarrassing yourself.

 

Okay.

 

 

 

 

[Ferocious Banger]

 

CVG are NOT idiots

 

Yes they aren't. That lends credibility to my calculations on a map - that CVG said were accurate - I believe.

[kesta195]

...if you think the statement from GI is false.

 

Until somebody from GI gets the opportunity to play the game and take the time to carefully measure and calculate the area mass and give us it's confirmation, I'm going to take anything they say regarding this issue as false.

During previews there is a R* employee answering the questions of the press as well as providing commentary for the demo. It is highly likely that after the first preview someone will have asked how the city compares to LC and that is the answer they were given.

[GKP]

Ok - thats getting there I suppose....

 

I would say 4.5 max...city only...we shall see

[kesta195]

Peronally I think the city has potential to be even bigger than FB has calculated, as jbte's map that he used doesn't leave much of an area east of the LS river. Don't know about anyone else but I would say that there is more room than that.

[The Scottish Guy]

...if you think the statement from GI is false.

 

Until somebody from GI gets the opportunity to play the game and take the time to carefully measure and calculate the area mass and give us it's confirmation, I'm going to take anything they say regarding this issue as false.

During previews there is a R* employee answering the questions of the press as well as providing commentary for the demo. It is highly likely that after the first preview someone will have asked how the city compares to LC and that is the answer they were given.

I would really appreciate it if you could provide a source for this confirmation of R*'s. I've read pretty much all the previews/interviews/etc and have not once come across this.

[kesta195]

...if you think the statement from GI is false.

 

Until somebody from GI gets the opportunity to play the game and take the time to carefully measure and calculate the area mass and give us it's confirmation, I'm going to take anything they say regarding this issue as false.

During previews there is a R* employee answering the questions of the press as well as providing commentary for the demo. It is highly likely that after the first preview someone will have asked how the city compares to LC and that is the answer they were given.

I would really appreciate it if you could provide a source for this confirmation of R*'s. I've read pretty much all the previews/interviews/etc and have not once come across this.

I am not saying that R* DID provide that quote, but many of the recent previws did mention a R* employee who was talking them through the demo and answering their questions. I hardly need to provide a link for that.

[gtamann123]

...if you think the statement from GI is false.

 

Until somebody from GI gets the opportunity to play the game and take the time to carefully measure and calculate the area mass and give us it's confirmation, I'm going to take anything they say regarding this issue as false.

During previews there is a R* employee answering the questions of the press as well as providing commentary for the demo. It is highly likely that after the first preview someone will have asked how the city compares to LC and that is the answer they were given.

I would really appreciate it if you could provide a source for this confirmation of R*'s. I've read pretty much all the previews/interviews/etc and have not once come across this.

Its in the GI cover story from back in November I believe.

[icandothisallday]

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.

uh.... you arent very bright are you? there is 308 square miles of land mass in new york city... what was liberty city again? 6??? not to mention there is about 1/50th of the buildings in liberty as there is in new york. the provided pictures are clear evidence of that. and yes, everyone has been bitching about not enough skyscrapers and not enough suburbs and probably not enough penis in their hands when they go to take a leak.

[Official General]

@ icandothisallday

 

You clearly don't get what I'm saying do you ? Go to a little corner somewhere and and try and think hard to figure out. Come back to me when you do. I really have not the time or patience for people with a low brain cell count right now.

 

Ah I see you are new member of the RDF, your join date tells. No wonder why you dived in head first with naive enthusiasm.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Official General

[GKP]

Frankly , considering how GTAIV was 6.25 sq miles incl water and looked huge...I CANNOT see how LS is anywhere near it.

 

Without water LC is likely comparable. There are simply not as many near buildings to make it double the LC land area.

[icandothisallday]

...if you think the statement from GI is false.

 

Until somebody from GI gets the opportunity to play the game and take the time to carefully measure and calculate the area mass and give us it's confirmation, I'm going to take anything they say regarding this issue as false.

During previews there is a R* employee answering the questions of the press as well as providing commentary for the demo. It is highly likely that after the first preview someone will have asked how the city compares to LC and that is the answer they were given.

I would really appreciate it if you could provide a source for this confirmation of R*'s. I've read pretty much all the previews/interviews/etc and have not once come across this.

Its in the GI cover story from back in November I believe.

From what you saw, did Los Santos, the city itself (not including mountains/countryside/etc.) appear bigger than GTA IV’s Liberty City?

 

Los Santos definitely covers more square footage, just as the sprawling Los Angeles metro area does compared to New York City. But just like the real cities, if you’re wondering about the density of the downtown area, Los Santos proper is smaller than Liberty City.

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/arc...PostPageIndex=2

[Ferocious Banger]

@icandothisallday - Not clever. Stay on topic -in a decent way. No need of penis jokes.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Ferocious Banger

[Official General]

^Not clever. Stay on topic -in a decent way. No need of penis jokes.

Exactly. You gotta wonder what the deal is with the obsession with penises coming from certain guys in this thread.

 

Some of these guys have nothing to say about boobs, vagina or a pretty female face, but they are guaranteed to talk about penises.

[icandothisallday]

 

^Not clever. Stay on topic -in a decent way. No need of penis jokes.

theres no need for about 99% of the horsesh*t in this thread... btw your post telling me i was off topic was just as off topic as this one?

also, if you are offended by penis jokes you may not want to purchase and play gta v

[skillz7855]

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.

uh.... you arent very bright are you? there is 308 square miles of land mass in new york city... what was liberty city again? 6??? not to mention there is about 1/50th of the buildings in liberty as there is in new york. the provided pictures are clear evidence of that. and yes, everyone has been bitching about not enough skyscrapers and not enough suburbs and probably not enough penis in their hands when they go to take a leak.

That Pic of LC makes it look even smaller than LS just my 2 sense

[GKP]

thats because there is loads of LC not in that pic.

[skillz7855]

thats because there is loads of LC not in that pic.

Yea minus some of dukes and bohan which was not even big at all. If IV had V's draw distance it probably look even smaller.

We haven't seen all of LS either.

[kesta195]

thats because there is loads of LC not in that pic.

Bohan, the eastern most part of Dukes and the northern most part of Alderney are all that's missing.