Let's be realistic: GTA V is nowhere near the size or scope of San

[Ghost-Unit]

Title got cut off. It's supposed to read: "Let's be realistic: GTA V is nowhere near the size or scope of San Andreas."

 

(Note before you read this: I'm not knocking GTA V. It's an awesome game. But there were some very ballsy proclamations about the size of the map.)

 

Like, the proclamation was that GTA V is bigger than San Andreas, IV, and Red Dead Redemption combined. I have hundreds of hours logged into GTA San Andreas, and I'm calling bs on that. I'm calling bs on the first claim, nevermind the other two.

I just don't see it. I've just beaten GTA V so I've been around the map a good few times. Maybe from a technical, mathematical standpoint GTA V is bigger. But translated into actual player perspective, there's just no way. I spent extensive time in the countryside in San Andreas. Angel Pine (The little town in the bottom left of the map) was completely cut off from the rest of the world. Completely. Cut. Off. If the claim was made that GTA V was the size of Los Santos + Northern Red County + Las Venturas from San Andreas? I'd believe you, because that's reasonable. But there's simply no way GTA V's wilderness trumps the size of Back o' Beyond, Whetstone, Bone County, Mount Chilead, Blueberry, and Red County, and etc.

I feel like an idiot for standing up against the mathematics, but something isn't being taken into account. We are missing something, and I don't know what it is.

 

Take a stab if you agree?

Edited September 24, 2013 by Ghost-Unit

[Hector Tavares]

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

[EliasMansour]

Suck a diccccck

[dp415263]

I agree and Los Santos seems like the same size as Liberty city and broker combined.

[Fireboyd78]

Let's be realistic: You don't appreciate what you've been given, and obviously want the world from Rockstar. Sorry if they didn't give you CJ back, and that you can't make Michael fat. I'll tell you 'hwat, trolling is bad, mmkay?

Edited September 24, 2013 by CarLuver69

[GlitchOnMyLevel]

I cant prove it but I feel like it is.

[HeliWolf420]

Nah I can't agree with you there. SA had one mountain, V has mountain ranges. Plural.

 

SA had a tiny Los Santos that aside from a few landmarks didn't look anything like Los Angeles, with V I feel like I'be been to LA.

 

V is far more impressive and clearly had a broader but also more focused 'scope'.

Edited September 24, 2013 by HeliWolf420

[Ghost-Unit]

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

 

I concur. Mostly I feel weird about the whole situation. There are people that have played GTA V and still think the map is bigger by a significant margin. I just don't see how they figure that.

[Raptomex]

Los Santos was confirmed to be about the same size as Liberty City from IV. This is nothing new.

[stevean2]

[Ghost-Unit]

Let's be realistic: You don't appreciate what you've been given, and obviously want the world from Rockstar. Sorry if they didn't give you CJ back, and that you can't make Michael fatter than your mom. Because let's be realistic here - your mom is a f*cking whale, bro.

 

Didn't read my disclaimer, did you? I'm not knocking the game. But the assertions about the map were untrue.

[lazedout]

 

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

 

I concur. Mostly I feel weird about the whole situation. There are people that have played GTA V and still think the map is bigger by a significant margin. I just don't see how they figure that.

 

 

Yeah now that he brings it up, I dont know how they HELL they claimed it was bigger than LS, SA AND RDR combined. Thats asinine. Maybe taking into account he WHOLE ocean. SA alone was absolutely massive.

[Algonquin Assassin]

SA was incredibly condensed and the sh*tty draw distance is what helped the illusion that it was big when it really wasn't. GTA V has mountain ranges and a fully explorable ocean floor. I think it is as big as GTA IV, RDR and SA combined when you consider mountain peaks and the ocean.

[BMW Sterling]

It is bigger than all of the 3 maps.

[Hector Tavares]

 

It's still a massive difference compared to the incredibly cluttered and boring Liberty City. I'm still finding new roads and tunnels and such to this very day, but I can agree that the map might've been a tad bit exaggerated. Bigger than Liberty City, San Andreas, AND Red Dead Redemption's maps combined? Not a chance.

 

I concur. Mostly I feel weird about the whole situation. There are people that have played GTA V and still think the map is bigger by a significant margin. I just don't see how they figure that.

 

 

Still nonetheless, I love and enjoy the new map. Absolutely amazing, with loads of variety in terms of locations. The massive highway that wraps around the entire map is an awesome way to achieve some crazy speeds. The offroading trails are fun too.

[M'aiq the Liar]

Exaggerated perhaps? I'm having trouble buying it's bigger then all three of those games combined. It's decent size though I'm content with the map.

[Soadisthebest]

Draw distance buddy.

[Crewnordin]

 

Watch this homeboy

[lazedout]

It is bigger than all of the 3 maps.

 

The question is not if its bigger than than the individual maps, but all of them COMBINED.

 

Eff the ocean floor, that is a cop out. The land mass above sea level is all that should be considered. Its definitely a massive map though.

Edited September 24, 2013 by lazedout

[Joshua8903]

Do you guys think Rockstar just guessed when comparing to the other games THEY'VE made? I'm curious as to why everyone is so discontent with that claim. It's not like SA is unbelievably big, but back then it was for a sandbox game.

 

Rockstar is never going to redo GTA San Andreas, and according to this forum, 85% of GTA fans will continue to be disappointed since the release of IV.

[LaughingDingo]

Considering the ocean and the explorable area in it, their statement probably is true. In terms of landmass though, I don't think so.

[lazedout]

Do you guys think Rockstar just guessed when comparing to the other games THEY'VE made? I'm curious as to why everyone is so discontent with that claim. It's not like SA is unbelievably big, but back then it was for a sandbox game.

 

Rockstar is never going to redo GTA San Andreas, and according to this forum, 85% of GTA fans will continue to be disappointed since the release of IV.

I think they included the entire ocean floor in that statement.

[Ronrollin9434]

Angel Pine has nothing to do with it. More like the fact that they included three huge, unique cities connected and surrounded by large countryside. I think that SF and LV are responsible for most, if not all of the illusion that SA is bigger than V.

 

But, in reality it's not. V just has a sh*t load of countryside -- too much, if you ask me. I would easily have been okay with Rockstar cutting out half of the country/rural areas in GTA V and replaced it with a big/medium size city -- not necessarily SF or LV but another California related city that is very beachy -- like San Diego or Long Beach.

[Toastybunz]

Don't get me wrong, I loved San Andreas but the sh*tty draw distance and slow cars made it seem much bigger then it really was. Not to mention a lot of nostalgia...

 

The draw distance is incredible in V and not to mention most of the cars are WAY faster then any previous GTA game. I have zero complaints about the new map. I love exploring the countryside more then the city (and there is tons to see there).

Edited September 24, 2013 by Toastybunz

[jato4x4]

Plus the cars were much slower back in SA, which madeit take even longer to travel.

 

That video really shows how big SA was, or actually was not.

[lazedout]

Plus the cars were much slower back in SA, which madeit take even longer to travel.

 

That video really shows how big SA was, or actually was not.

 

Yeah, but add to that RDR and LS.

[IGhostUlt]

gta sa felt bigger because it had more cities

Edited September 24, 2013 by IGhostUlt

[EzOne4Me]

 

Watch this homeboy

 

This.

 

Stop saying SA was big. It's 2013, ever heard of draw distance?

SA + IV + RDR = V + Ocean floor

[iN31L]

 

Watch this homeboy

 

This pretty much debunks these stupid motherf*ckers talking about how SA is bigger than V.

Edited September 24, 2013 by iN31L

[Death2Drugs]

SA was incredibly condensed and the sh*tty draw distance is what helped the illusion that it was big when it really wasn't. GTA V has mountain ranges and a fully explorable ocean floor. I think it is as big as GTA IV, RDR and SA combined when you consider mountain peaks and the ocean.

 

We're also forgetting another big piece of the puzzle: highways. There was no direct highway from one city to another in GTA San Andreas (except one connecting Los Santos to Las Venturas). The fact that there were long highways in between the stretch of countryside created the illusion of a bigger map.