ChatterBoxFM Posted June 16, 2013 Author Share Posted June 16, 2013 thats from bottom right to bottom left. not the greatest distance in the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAfan786 Posted June 16, 2013 Share Posted June 16, 2013 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? I'm not the one who compared it with each other. If you read my statement properly, I actually said it's not fair to compare them as SA is from PS2 and RDR from PS3. And yes, RDR uses a different engine. The reason I don't take Dan's word is because he isn't physically in the studio, at least all the time as he is the script writer. I'm only trusting the in game measurements taken from in game. Dan just uses logic because SA has 3 cities that's why he thinks it's larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjacked Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. dan houser doesnt know sh*t?lol he was the executive producer for rdr... that means he was in charge of everything and he clearly stated the rdr was bigger than san andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DODI3OG Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. WTF do you mean by this? GTA SA on the PS3 and PS2 have no difference at all 'cause the PS3 is ported from the PS2 version. Unless you mean something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephene123 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. dan houser doesnt know sh*t?lol he was the executive producer for rdr... that means he was in charge of everything and he clearly stated the rdr was bigger than san andreas Do you have ANYTHING else to back your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjacked Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. dan houser doesnt know sh*t?lol he was the executive producer for rdr... that means he was in charge of everything and he clearly stated the rdr was bigger than san andreas Do you have ANYTHING else to back your point? what else do i need?lol he oversaw production of the entire game. he pretty well is rockstar in the flesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josephene123 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 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. dan houser doesnt know sh*t?lol he was the executive producer for rdr... that means he was in charge of everything and he clearly stated the rdr was bigger than san andreas Do you have ANYTHING else to back your point? what else do i need?lol he oversaw production of the entire game. he pretty well is rockstar in the flesh! I'm not bothering with someone who honestly expects the next GTA game to be 120+ square miles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrandMaster Smith Posted June 18, 2013 Share Posted June 18, 2013 It's funny comparing that image the V's Los Santos. sh*t makes San Andreas look tiny as hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts