They said GTA V is bigger than GTA SA right?

[dee8ball]

lol of course, San Andreas is really small compared to Red Dead Redemption.

Actually it's not, and the playable area of RDR is a fair amount smaller.

 

But GTA V as a whole is definitely larger. The news of it being "GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, and San Andreas combined with room to spare" might not be true, but it's still quite large.

I agree with Mr Darko, They said RDR map will be twice as big as San Andreas........ It wasnt.

 

It will be bigger, but not as big as they are saying it will be.

If you include all the non-playable area, isn't it bigger than SA then?

Actually the playable area of Red Dead Redemption is quite a bit bigger than San Andreas.

What? Lmao. No it isn't. SA is 13.9 sq miles and all of it is playable. While RDR is a total of 12 sq miles and only 6.5sq miles is playable

That is your opinion and it is wrong. No one from rockstar ever gave concrete numbers on the size of RDR's map. In fact, the only thing they said was RDR's map is roughly twice as big as San Andreas map. By your wacky calculations grand theft auto v will be a little bigger than 1.5x san andreas which is ridiculous.

Oh hi justgettinridiculous.

[cj2400]

For goodness sake how long until people accept RDR was NOT bigger than SA, I've seen it said so many times

This^

 

I think it's funny too... imagine we had sports cars in RDR, the map would feel tiny!!

 

Also, it takes longer to go from one side of sa to the other in a sports car, then its does a horse in RDR... so how is it even remotely possible???

Well GTA SA has plenty of turns while Red Dead is a straight line with no traffic at all.

[Magic_Al]

Dan Houser: "This world(RDR) is two times larger than the one presented in GTA: San Andreas."

This quote is unreliable. It was in a foreign language article, which means it was translated from Houser's English to another language and now back to English indirectly.

 

It's also irrelevant, because even if Dan Houser said it, it's proved wrong by Red Dead Redemption's own in-game distance measurements.

 

 

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is an logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts.

Did you measure the Game? Zomg, RDR is actually bigger.. But if the SA Lovers want to continue to showcase there love by looking very dumb in the process then ok. Go right ahead..

Yes, I started posting about my RDR measuring project in fall 2011 and I've described the process many times, most recently here.

 

Anyone who takes an unbiased, scientific approach will get the same result I and others have: under 6 square miles for the accessible area of the game. If you ignore any numbers others have given and use the in-game distance stats and the map to figure the area mathematically yourself, the answer is there.

false... you have no way of knowing whether or not the in game measurements are reliable and how the games are scaled. in fact the chances are worse than slim to none. the games were developed nearly a decade apart on different hardware and running on different engines. how on earth could you pretend that there is any accuracy in what you are saying?

I'd encourage you to stop repeating what you believe and actually test my results.

[SaVaGe308]

Dan Houser: "This world(RDR) is two times larger than the one presented in GTA: San Andreas."

This quote is unreliable. It was in a foreign language article, which means it was translated from Houser's English to another language and now back to English indirectly.

 

It's also irrelevant, because even if Dan Houser said it, it's proved wrong by Red Dead Redemption's own in-game distance measurements.

 

 

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is an logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts.

Did you measure the Game? Zomg, RDR is actually bigger.. But if the SA Lovers want to continue to showcase there love by looking very dumb in the process then ok. Go right ahead..

Yes, I started posting about my RDR measuring project in fall 2011 and I've described the process many times, most recently here.

 

Anyone who takes an unbiased, scientific approach will get the same result I and others have: under 6 square miles for the accessible area of the game. If you ignore any numbers others have given and use the in-game distance stats and the map to figure the area mathematically yourself, the answer is there.

false... you have no way of knowing whether or not the in game measurements are reliable and how the games are scaled. in fact the chances are worse than slim to none. the games were developed nearly a decade apart on different hardware and running on different engines. how on earth could you pretend that there is any accuracy in what you are saying?

I'd encourage you to stop repeating what you believe and actually test my results.

I encourage you to quit encouraging people. No one has to believe your fabricated results. As was stated those games were created nearly a decade apart on different systems running different engines. The chances of those two games being scaled the same and/or having anywhere close to similar in game measurements is basically zero. Dan Houser was more than clear in his statement. Rdr is bigger than San Andreas. Also, everything past the first page of this thread is horribly off topic. Its almost as far off as your map measuring skills

[Grand Theft Savage]

So you're really asking if GTA V is going to be larger than GTA San Andreas?

 

Yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, Red Dead Redemption, and Grand Theft Auto IV combined ("with room to spare") or some sh*t like that. It's f*cking big, man. Almost as big as my cock. The playable space is unbelievable.

And for those arguing about RDR being bigger than San Andreas... WRONG. SA is larger than RDR in terms of explorable area. I have no idea how you guys are seeing otherwise.

[Ferocious Banger]

Dan Houser: "This world(RDR) is two times larger than the one presented in GTA: San Andreas."

This quote is unreliable. It was in a foreign language article, which means it was translated from Houser's English to another language and now back to English indirectly.

 

It's also irrelevant, because even if Dan Houser said it, it's proved wrong by Red Dead Redemption's own in-game distance measurements.

 

 

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is an logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts.

Did you measure the Game? Zomg, RDR is actually bigger.. But if the SA Lovers want to continue to showcase there love by looking very dumb in the process then ok. Go right ahead..

Yes, I started posting about my RDR measuring project in fall 2011 and I've described the process many times, most recently here.

 

Anyone who takes an unbiased, scientific approach will get the same result I and others have: under 6 square miles for the accessible area of the game. If you ignore any numbers others have given and use the in-game distance stats and the map to figure the area mathematically yourself, the answer is there.

false... you have no way of knowing whether or not the in game measurements are reliable and how the games are scaled. in fact the chances are worse than slim to none. the games were developed nearly a decade apart on different hardware and running on different engines. how on earth could you pretend that there is any accuracy in what you are saying?

I'd encourage you to stop repeating what you believe and actually test my results.

I encourage you to quit encouraging people. No one has to believe your fabricated results. As was stated those games were created nearly a decade apart on different systems running different engines. The chances of those two games being scaled the same and/or having anywhere close to similar in game measurements is basically zero. Dan Houser was more than clear in his statement. Rdr is bigger than San Andreas. Also, everything past the first page of this thread is horribly off topic. Its almost as far off as your map measuring skills

Let me once again go by you "roughly" twice the size of San Andreas figure:

 

Let's say RDR is 25 square miles ( roughly, okay? )

 

Equation number (1):

 

GTA V is = San Andreas + RDR + GTA IV + some room to spare

 

San Andreas was literally confirmed by R* to be 13.9 square miles.

GTA IV is 6.25 square miles

RDR is, "officially", say 25 square miles ( reminding you of the "roughly twice" statement. Don't say "roughly twice" isn't near the figure of "twice"; basic English ).

 

According in (1), The size of GTA V should be 45.15 square miles.

 

Equation number (2):

 

GTA V is 3.5 times the size of RDR.

 

That would mean three times 25=87.5 square miles.

 

87.5 square miles

 

Equation (1) and (2) should tally each other, right? But what is happening here?

 

There is a difference of 42.35 square miles.

 

Do you honestly think that the "room to spare" is more than 40 square miles?

 

Please. Think and answer.

 

[Algonquin Assassin]

It's f*cking big, man. Almost as big as my cock.

I thought it was as big as GTA IV, RDR and SA combined not a Tic Tac?

[RockStarNiko]

 

Let me once again go by you "roughly" twice the size of San Andreas figure:

 

Let's say RDR is 25 square miles ( roughly, okay? )

 

Equation number (1):

 

GTA V is = San Andreas + RDR + GTA IV + some room to spare

 

San Andreas was literally confirmed by R* to be 13.9 square miles.

GTA IV is 6.25 square miles

RDR is, "officially", say 25 square miles ( reminding you of the "roughly twice" statement. Don't say "roughly twice" isn't near the figure of "twice"; basic English ).

 

According in (1),  The size of GTA V should be 45.15 square miles.

 

Equation number (2):

 

GTA V is 3.5 times the size of RDR.

 

That would mean three times 25=87.5 square miles.

 

87.5 square miles

 

Equation (1) and (2) should tally each other, right? But what is happening here?

 

There is a difference of 42.35 square miles.

 

Do you honestly think that the "room to spare" is more than 40 square miles?

 

Please. Think and answer.

This was one of the main points I was going to mention but I don't need to now so I move on to next points.

 

It is possible that SA, IV, RDR GTA V do and will use slightly different measuring systems, "possible".

 

According to the in game measuring systems the order of map size is SA > RDR > IV.

 

There is no point arguing about that statement because it is mathematical fact.

 

In terms of the exact size of each the best numbers I seen are from a member called "fatality", not 100% on the name.

 

He/she a computer program to calculate the area of each section of land for each map and the results were that RDR has a playable landmass of 5.x

 

Now, I do think people can debate whether the scale and measuring system used are the same in each game.

 

IF RDR did use a different measuring system, then it is possible that RDR is actually larger than the 5.x sq miles of land.

 

At the moment I am playing Far Cry 3 (great game btw). The North Island is ~5.3 km from west to east "according to the in game measuring system". Good thing about Far Cry 3 is that you don't have to piss about doing painstaking measuring exercises, it tells you the exact distance when use waypoints.

 

Now, playing Far Cry 3, I was surprised that this distance was smaller than the ~6km width of San Andreas, because Far Cry FEELS larger and LOOKS larger.

 

This image was posted earlier

 

 

Now, I don't know how tall the mountains are in Far Cry 3 but they are definitely taller than skyscrapers in San Andreas, DEFINITELY. When I was on the very top of one looking down I was actually shocked at how high up I was, I actually found it difficult to see the "ground" sea level.

 

If you took a similar image from on top of one of the huge mountains in Far Cry 3, then the landscape would seem much larger in my opinion.

 

What would be interesting is if we could put either a skyscraper or a large mountain into the RDR map, stand on top and then look across the map so we can compare the views.

 

I watched a ride through tour of RDR yesterday, they just went W-E. All my focus was on watching the surrounding environment as he rode though the map.

 

The main thing I thought of after watching was, whether the map is 5 sq miles or 25 sq miles, the map does feel big and GTA V is going to be 3.5 x the size of that, so it made me little more optimistic about GTA V map size.

 

 

Going back to Far Cry 3 to finish. I know that San Andreas is 6km wide and North Island 5.3km wide, according to in game measuring systems, but it really does not feel that way at all.

 

Is it an illusion? If it is an illusion that Far Cry North Island feels wider than San Andreas, maybe same is true for RDR. RDR "feels" larger but it is not.

 

OR, are the measuring systems and scales used for games indeed different. Maybe RDR uses a scale 2x SA, so the size of RDR using San Andreas measuring system would be 10.x sq miles. And maybe Far Cry uses 2x scale also, so using SA measuring system is it actually 10.6km wide?

[CTCCoco]

Rockstar should release the map size of all their games so people stop this sh*tty speculation.

[LTA1992]

 

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

 

 

And all of this arguing about RDRs entire map size versus play area. I have yet to see someone speculate the possibility that when R* said IV, RDR, and SA combined, that that would include the ENTIRE map of RDR?

Edited June 6, 2013 by LTA1992

[CTCCoco]

 

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

3/4 the size of SA? are you drunk?

 

You get a plane in GTA IV and you can't even reach the max speed without reach the end of the map before...

[DJ Vejeejee]

lol of course, San Andreas is really small compared to Red Dead Redemption.

idiota, san andreas is the biggest map of the three..

 

omg!

[Njale]

You can't count RDR's unplayable area, it would be as if you would count all the water that's not being used outside of Liberty City.

 

This is the correct correct order GTA V > SA > RDR > IV

[MrSpooge]

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

3/4 the size of SA? are you drunk?

 

You get a plane in GTA IV and you can't even reach the max speed without reach the end of the map before...

Planes in IV. Cool bro.. seriously. P.S RDR is Bigger.. Silly silly people.

[Lazy Squirrel PT]

People keep forgetting that SA and RDR are probably scaled differently and a mile in SA is not a mile in RDR. So these calculations need to be taken with a bucket of salt.

 

In the end it doesn't really matter which map is bigger. SA only took about 1 or 2 minutes to cross in the slowest plane, but it took forever just to drive from Los Santos to San Fierro. It was a tiny tiny map (go play it) but very well designed so it felt huge. RDR was the same, it took 20 minutes to cross the map east-west by horse (and those horses were really f*cking fast, I'd say about 40 to 50kph full speed, which is about the average speed of a car in a city), but sometimes in more mundane travels you lost a load of time if you had to go around cliffs.

 

All in all RDR felt bigger than SA to me. But remember that this doesn't matter a bit in the final game. If they say V is bigger than all these combined, it's actually really a monstrous size. If they add mountains, cliffs and other natural barriers, you could very well spend half an hour by car to cross the map by car, and maybe a good 5 minutes by jet.

[CTCCoco]

 

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

3/4 the size of SA? are you drunk?

 

You get a plane in GTA IV and you can't even reach the max speed without reach the end of the map before...

Planes in IV. Cool bro.. seriously. P.S RDR is Bigger.. Silly silly people.

That's the point, there are no planes in IV because the map is so f*cking small (even with the water between the islands) that there it wouldn't make sense to have planes.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

3/4 the size of SA? are you drunk?

 

You get a plane in GTA IV and you can't even reach the max speed without reach the end of the map before...

Planes in IV. Cool bro.. seriously. P.S RDR is Bigger.. Silly silly people.

That's the point, there are no planes in IV because the map is so f*cking small (even with the water between the islands) that there it wouldn't make sense to have planes.

This argument has always been a bit stupid to me because VC had planes. Seaplanes I know, but VC is like a spec of dust compared to GTA IV.

 

I've always felt planes weren't in GTA IV due to the phsyics (which I reckon also was a reason for parachutes not being added until TBOGT).

 

GTA IV's map isn't that small to accommodate a practical use for planes. Maybe not jets, but I've always believed the map being "small" isn't the sole reason.

[MrSpooge]

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

3/4 the size of SA? are you drunk?

 

You get a plane in GTA IV and you can't even reach the max speed without reach the end of the map before...

Planes in IV. Cool bro.. seriously. P.S RDR is Bigger.. Silly silly people.

That's the point, there are no planes in IV because the map is so f*cking small (even with the water between the islands) that there it wouldn't make sense to have planes.

This argument has always been a bit stupid to me because VC had planes. Seaplanes I know, but VC is like a spec of dust compared to GTA IV.

 

I've always felt planes weren't in GTA IV due to the phsyics (which I reckon also was a reason for parachutes not being added until TBOGT).

 

GTA IV's map isn't that small to accommodate a practical use for planes. Maybe not jets, but I've always believed the map being "small" isn't the sole reason.

They took out planes because of 911. Look about.

[CTCCoco]

@ferocious... did you not read anything rockstar released? as ive already stated that formula you posted means nothing. no one ever said gta=gta sa+gta iv+rdr.... no one... especially not rockstar

 

Since you like "official stats" yourself, let me explain the mathematical impossibility ( at least, improbability ) here.

 

Officially, San Andreas is 13.9 square miles.;GTA IV is 6.25 square miles and, if "Officially", RDR is 27.8 square miles,

 

You get a size of 47.95

 

But GTA V is also 3.5 times * RDR. That would mean a size of 97.3 square miles, if RDR is 27.8 square miles.

 

The two equations simply do not gel with each other.

 

If RDR is 27.8 square miles ( twice as big as San Andreas ), GTA IV has to be.. 43.1 square miles.

 

Theres no way SA was bigger then IV.

IV was 3/4 the size of SA.

3/4 the size of SA? are you drunk?

 

You get a plane in GTA IV and you can't even reach the max speed without reach the end of the map before...

Planes in IV. Cool bro.. seriously. P.S RDR is Bigger.. Silly silly people.

That's the point, there are no planes in IV because the map is so f*cking small (even with the water between the islands) that there it wouldn't make sense to have planes.

This argument has always been a bit stupid to me because VC had planes. Seaplanes I know, but VC is like a spec of dust compared to GTA IV.

 

I've always felt planes weren't in GTA IV due to the phsyics (which I reckon also was a reason for parachutes not being added until TBOGT).

 

GTA IV's map isn't that small to accommodate a practical use for planes. Maybe not jets, but I've always believed the map being "small" isn't the sole reason.

They took out planes because of 911. Look about.

The game was released in 2008, 11/s is 2001. I can't see the relation.

 

They already said GTA IV was so small to have planes on it, and that they wanted to bring back that in GTA V with a huge map.

[Magic_Al]

Dan Houser: "This world(RDR) is two times larger than the one presented in GTA: San Andreas."

This quote is unreliable. It was in a foreign language article, which means it was translated from Houser's English to another language and now back to English indirectly.

 

It's also irrelevant, because even if Dan Houser said it, it's proved wrong by Red Dead Redemption's own in-game distance measurements.

 

 

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is an logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather absolute argument for establishing facts.

Did you measure the Game? Zomg, RDR is actually bigger.. But if the SA Lovers want to continue to showcase there love by looking very dumb in the process then ok. Go right ahead..

Yes, I started posting about my RDR measuring project in fall 2011 and I've described the process many times, most recently here.

 

Anyone who takes an unbiased, scientific approach will get the same result I and others have: under 6 square miles for the accessible area of the game. If you ignore any numbers others have given and use the in-game distance stats and the map to figure the area mathematically yourself, the answer is there.

false... you have no way of knowing whether or not the in game measurements are reliable and how the games are scaled. in fact the chances are worse than slim to none. the games were developed nearly a decade apart on different hardware and running on different engines. how on earth could you pretend that there is any accuracy in what you are saying?

I'd encourage you to stop repeating what you believe and actually test my results.

I encourage you to quit encouraging people. No one has to believe your fabricated results. As was stated those games were created nearly a decade apart on different systems running different engines. The chances of those two games being scaled the same and/or having anywhere close to similar in game measurements is basically zero. Dan Houser was more than clear in his statement. Rdr is bigger than San Andreas. Also, everything past the first page of this thread is horribly off topic. Its almost as far off as your map measuring skills

I've posted enough detail of what I did that anyone with a game console with Red Dead Redemption and a PC for viewing an image of the radar map could repeat every step and prove me right or wrong. I've been consistently open to having my numbers improved by people who make better measurements, and several people have, but all the results are close to mine because they're all close to the reality that is testable in the game.

 

If somebody from Namco claimed the maze of Ms. Pac-Man is twice as big as the maze of Pac-Man, that would not make it so. It can be proved the maze of Ms. Pac-Man is exactly the same size as the maze of Pac-Man by measuring what's on the screens of those games. Believing they're not the same would require refusing to believe in math. Comparing GTASA and RDR is more complicated but not a different concept.

 

When GTAV is out, the only way to compare its size to previous games will be its own in-game stats and an image of its map. The process will be the same as comparing RDR to GTASA or GTAIV. You seem to be rejecting the entire premise that claims about size are TESTABLE. It's like saying no one can test a car manufacturer's mileage claim by filling their gas tank and seeing how many miles they can go before they have to fill up again.

[SaVaGe308]

as has been stated by numerous other posters, red dead is muuuuuch larger than san andreas. the fact that people think otherwise blows my mind, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. im gonna go play rdr cause the map is so much bigger than san andreas

[MrSpooge]

as has been stated by numerous other posters, red dead is muuuuuch larger than san andreas. the fact that people think otherwise blows my mind, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. im gonna go play rdr cause the map is so much bigger than san andreas

You making us look bad.

[simonp92]

as has been stated by numerous other posters, red dead is muuuuuch larger than san andreas. the fact that people think otherwise blows my mind, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. im gonna go play rdr cause the map is so much bigger than san andreas

Well if numerous people say it, it must be right.

[SaVaGe308]

as has been stated by numerous other posters, red dead is muuuuuch larger than san andreas. the fact that people think otherwise blows my mind, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. im gonna go play rdr cause the map is so much bigger than san andreas

Well if numerous people say it, it must be right.

when one of them is dan houser id have to agree...

[NYC PATROL]

I hope when rockstar was talking about GTA V's landmass as 3x RDR that they

include the non-playable area in there. But I shouldn't get my hopes up.

 

 

[GTAfan786]

They haven't even said if it included the non-playable area, therefore, we don't know sh*t yet. IF it doesn't include it, then 25-30sq miles is the size, which is still astonishing, or if it does include it, i don't know how much the size is going to be, probably like 40-50.

[SirJohnnyStark]

as has been stated by numerous other posters, red dead is muuuuuch larger than san andreas. the fact that people think otherwise blows my mind, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. im gonna go play rdr cause the map is so much bigger than san andreas

Well if numerous people say it, it must be right.

when one of them is dan houser id have to agree...

I am Dan Houser, and they are right, and you are wrong...

 

nah just joking... wait... I look like Dan Houser... does this give me the right to claim I am Dan Houser??

 

OT: RDR is much bigger... it took me ages riding from one side to the other side of the map... well, I guess its because I was riding a donkey...

 

no... seriously... the only way I can contribute to this topic: i know the reason why GTA SA felt way bigger than it was... know why??? because of the draw distance... it just seems bigger... playing the GTA SA IV mod (or however its called), it looses this feeling of size, because draw distance is damn high...

you literallly see the flying UFOs above the Area 69, if you stand on top of Vinewood Hills...

[Magic_Al]

They haven't even said if it included the non-playable area, therefore, we don't know sh*t yet. IF it doesn't include it, then 25-30sq miles is the size, which is still astonishing, or if it does include it, i don't know how much the size is going to be, probably like 40-50.

Non-playable area can mean two things: it can mean the entire rectangular map, or it can mean the area of land beyond the game boundaries that actually has scenery content. I doubt the entire non-playable area of the map contains scenery. The northwest part of the map would seem to be out of any line of sight. Visible non-playable scenery probably gets less detailed the farther it is beyond the boundaries.

 

I think it's fair to include non-playable area of RDR that contains content but not areas that may be void space. It's almost better expressed in man-hours of design work than area. The inaccessible area would be missing collision, high detail, wildlife/peds/traffic, etc. It's easier to compare GTAV to the playable area which is fully complete in every way than the boundary area that isn't at the same level of work. GTAV, like most GTAs, should have a fully accessible map with no out-of-bounds scenery like RDR's or L.A. Noire's or GTA3's.

[tenpennyisplainevil]

It boggles my mind that people still think RDR is bigger than SA. I want to scream because you make it seem as if I and few other sane people are surrounded by countless retards that fail to acknowledge the facts and base their conclusion on the feel of the game or another inbred method. Everytime I read "RDR is so much bigger than SA" it's like I get one of those errors that make robots explode in cheesy movies because it's beyond me how many stupidity overflows this topic. You've really got me going bonkers here.