RDR or SA?

[AnDReJ98]

rdr is clearly bigger.

Let them have their fun man. They're still using badly scaled maps to compare map sizes and they can't see it. It's hilarious.

Are you crazy? It was calculated over 10 times that SA has bigger map than RDR! Plus i've played both games and i can say what's the truth. Don't be dissapointed, RDR has smaller map than SA!

[Andreas]

 

Let them have their fun man. They're still using badly scaled maps to compare map sizes and they can't see it. It's hilarious.

You are basing your whole argument of Red Dead Redemption being bigger than San Andreas on one sentence from Dan Houser. Unfortunately, I haven't even found that even though I searched for it in Google. The maps aren't badly scaled, they already are scaled correctly in one meter per pixel resolution. All you have to do is to measure the maps in-game or trusting that the scale is the same and just count the pixels of the map to exclude the non-explorable area, for instance.

 

Do not trust everything that videogame developers try to tell you. Just because they are the ones who developed the game, doesn't mean that everything they say about it is necessarily true. The same goes for other sources out there that more or less repeat what they have been told. The information isn't always 100% accurate, rather vague and always should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian

[ChatterBoxFM]

Let them have their fun man. They're still using badly scaled maps to compare map sizes and they can't see it. It's hilarious.

You are basing your whole argument of Red Dead Redemption being bigger than San Andreas on one sentence from Dan Houser. Unfortunately, I haven't even found that even though I searched for it in Google. The maps aren't badly scaled, they already are scaled correctly in one meter per pixel resolution. All you have to do is to measure the maps in-game or trusting that the scale is the same and just count the pixels of the map to exclude the non-explorable area, for instance.

 

Do not trust everything that videogame developers try to tell you. Just because they are the ones who developed the game, doesn't mean that everything they say about it is necessarily true. The same goes for other sources out there that more or less repeat what they have been told. The information isn't always 100% accurate, rather vague and always should be taken with a pinch of salt.

[justgettinridiculous]

rdr is clearly bigger.

Let them have their fun man. They're still using badly scaled maps to compare map sizes and they can't see it. It's hilarious.

Ridiculous isn't it? Oh well. I know the truth. Rdr is muuuuuuch bigger than san aAndreas. As for the rest of you, I can't see you, the rdr map is in the way and its so big its impossible to see your posts...lol

[AnDReJ98]

^ Wake up man! You're still in dreams that RDR has bigger map than SA. Wake up and look through real way. RDR = 6.5, SA = 13.9 Hey man, you're still in dreams and you're blind so you can't see that RDR's map is smaller than SA's map. Wake up!

[SaVaGe308]

^ Wake up man! You're still in dreams that RDR has bigger map than SA. Wake up and look through real way. RDR = 6.5, SA = 13.9 Hey man, you're still in dreams and you're blind so you can't see that RDR's map is smaller than SA's map. Wake up!

sorry mate. rdr is much larger

[dxbrandon]

For me, it's RDR.

[josephene123]

For me, it's RDR.

Why?

[LittleBlueTroll]

I can't tell you whats bigger, but i can certainly tell you what's better. And let's all ignore the fact that what i said sounded like some bizarre sexual innuendo.

 

Oh yeah, and to finish what i was saying, the better map is San Andreas.

[TheGodfather.]

RDR's map size is no doubt bigger than SA

[AnDReJ98]

@josephene123 - No need to ask them why, cause they have no reason why it's bigger. RDR's map is cleary smaller than SA's, but they'll never understand it, or they are just trolling. Anyhow i know the truth, SA has bigger map, it was caculated million times and who doesn't want to believe me, he doesn't have to. But that's the truth.

 

Goodbye.

Edited June 7, 2013 by AnDReJ98

[tooeasy...]

RDR's map size is no doubt bigger than SA

I strongly agree. San Andreas was considerably smaller than red dead redmption

[getfranklin]

red dead redemption was quite a bit bigger. san andreas was scaled horribly

[ugotsmoked]

I personally walked both maps and they are the exact same size, down to the millimeter.

[kjacked]

Rdr was waaaaay bigger than San Andreas. Rock star even said so

[Sgt. Foley]

I know I don't like RDR much but given that it is way bigger than SA, I just can't pick my favorite.

 

RDR wins.

[Killerdude]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

 

[kjacked]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

I agree. A member posted some pics from the PC version with a longer draw distance and he stood atop a building in los Santos and could see across the entire map. Red dead looked twice as big to me. Everyone always says San Andreas was 13.9miles... bullsh*t. That was the most over scaled videogame of all time if that's the case

[josephene123]

Seeing as most of the users saying on this topic that RDR is bigger are actually one person posting under several different accounts, I think we know which game is bigger.

[TECHN9CiAN]

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo

But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.

[kjacked]

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo

But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.

? That makes no sense at all. You could say there was more to do in San Andreas, but to say it was bigger than red dead is false. Red dead had a bigger map.

[josephene123]

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo

But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.

? That makes no sense at all. You could say there was more to do in San Andreas, but to say it was bigger than red dead is false. Red dead had a bigger map.

Your opinion?

[redx165]

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo

But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.

? That makes no sense at all. You could say there was more to do in San Andreas, but to say it was bigger than red dead is false. Red dead had a bigger map.

Your opinion?

A fact

[AceRay]

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo

But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.

? That makes no sense at all. You could say there was more to do in San Andreas, but to say it was bigger than red dead is false. Red dead had a bigger map.

What do you mean by bigger? I think we're meaning in terms of map size, in which case RDR is bigger. Also, SA had a lot of dead space and wasn't as interesting in terms of design, it was much better in RDR.

[dxbrandon]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

I agree. A member posted some pics from the PC version with a longer draw distance and he stood atop a building in los Santos and could see across the entire map. Red dead looked twice as big to me. Everyone always says San Andreas was 13.9miles... bullsh*t. That was the most over scaled videogame of all time if that's the case

This?

 

[GTAfan786]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

I agree. A member posted some pics from the PC version with a longer draw distance and he stood atop a building in los Santos and could see across the entire map. Red dead looked twice as big to me. Everyone always says San Andreas was 13.9miles... bullsh*t. That was the most over scaled videogame of all time if that's the case

This?

 

That was on the PS2. Draw Distance on a PS3 and PS2 are incredibly different. It's not fair to compare that picture with RDR. Technically, SA IS 13.9 sq miles, it felt HUGE in game and all of it was playable. RDR's map was 11.9 sq miles but only 6.5 was playable.

[redx165]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

I agree. A member posted some pics from the PC version with a longer draw distance and he stood atop a building in los Santos and could see across the entire map. Red dead looked twice as big to me. Everyone always says San Andreas was 13.9miles... bullsh*t. That was the most over scaled videogame of all time if that's the case

This?

 

That was on the PS2. Draw Distance on a PS3 and PS2 are incredibly different. It's not fair to compare that picture with RDR. Technically, SA IS 13.9 sq miles, it felt HUGE in game and all of it was playable. RDR's map was 11.9 sq miles but only 6.5 was playable.

Dan Houser said twice as big as GTA SA. So that would be 27.8 sq miles give or take.

[GTAfan786]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

I agree. A member posted some pics from the PC version with a longer draw distance and he stood atop a building in los Santos and could see across the entire map. Red dead looked twice as big to me. Everyone always says San Andreas was 13.9miles... bullsh*t. That was the most over scaled videogame of all time if that's the case

This?

 

That was on the PS2. Draw Distance on a PS3 and PS2 are incredibly different. It's not fair to compare that picture with RDR. Technically, SA IS 13.9 sq miles, it felt HUGE in game and all of it was playable. RDR's map was 11.9 sq miles but only 6.5 was playable.

Dan Houser said twice as big as GTA SA. So that would be 27.8 sq miles give or take.

Dan Houser doesn't know sh*t tbh. He's just the script writer. He doesn't know that people have used in game measurements to find out RDR was 11.9 sq miles and SA was 13.9. BUT, RDR did feel bigger because of the vast environment and the horses and stuff. SA was 13.9 sq miles but you can't really tell.

[TECHN9CiAN]

Red Dead Redemption's map is bigger. Rockstar said it themselves.

bingo

But RDR is all wasted space, a bunch of desert land. San andreas had that and then some, it had more life to its map, so i would say SA is bigger. Rdr's map is half dead emptiness.

? That makes no sense at all. You could say there was more to do in San Andreas, but to say it was bigger than red dead is false. Red dead had a bigger map.

What do you mean by bigger? I think we're meaning in terms of map size, in which case RDR is bigger. Also, SA had a lot of dead space and wasn't as interesting in terms of design, it was much better in RDR.

What i mean by bigger and more alive when refering to SA is that its not just a bunch of empty uninhabited land like RDR is. Sure SA's empty land is less diverse and ugly, but remember that rockstar didnt have the technology to add more "life" and diversity to the map. Taking that into account i feel that SA's map is bigger, not nessesarily in the literal sence, but in the overall feel and amount of accesable land.

 

Lets all be honest, when freeroaming in RDR, do you spend more time in the towns and nearby outskirts of town, or do you actually spend the majority of your time playing in the far-away-from-everything empty land masses?

[redx165]

RDR is much bigger, SA is actually fairly tiny.

I agree. A member posted some pics from the PC version with a longer draw distance and he stood atop a building in los Santos and could see across the entire map. Red dead looked twice as big to me. Everyone always says San Andreas was 13.9miles... bullsh*t. That was the most over scaled videogame of all time if that's the case

This?

 

That was on the PS2. Draw Distance on a PS3 and PS2 are incredibly different. It's not fair to compare that picture with RDR. Technically, SA IS 13.9 sq miles, it felt HUGE in game and all of it was playable. RDR's map was 11.9 sq miles but only 6.5 was playable.

Dan Houser said twice as big as GTA SA. So that would be 27.8 sq miles give or take.

Dan Houser doesn't know sh*t tbh. He's just the script writer. He doesn't know that people have used in game measurements to find out RDR was 11.9 sq miles and SA was 13.9. BUT, RDR did feel bigger because of the vast environment and the horses and stuff. SA was 13.9 sq miles but you can't really tell.

So you compare a game release in 2010 to one in 2004. Red Dead uses another engine and can be scaled differently. Also Dan Houser knows more about this then we do. Why wouldn't you take the word of a Rockstar member?