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

[Choco Taco]

http://www.tntgamer.com/gta-v-map-is-49-square-miles-in-size/

 

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/technology/new-gta-v-release-tipped-to-rake-in-1bn-in-sales-1-3081943

 

That's 2 articles, If it still isn't enough, go find more yourself, The point is, V's map is 49² miles.

 

Those articles don't even say how they got their measurements.

 

The in-game stats show that a rectangle around the land of GTA V is a little more than 30 square miles.

[Ash_735]

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

[Geralt of Rivia]

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

You should, because there's too many stupid people in this thread.

[Ash_735]

He's the one who found the paths and spacing, etc, so I wouldn't want to take that away from him as it's his work, but I'll let him know next time he's online to pop into this thread.

[Gunslinger_GK]

Draw distance, that is all.
SA felt bigger because you could'nt even see a mile away

Edit: nvm just read the 1st post

Edited December 6, 2013 by Gunslinger_GK

[Ash_735]

Draw distance, that is all.

SA felt bigger because you could'nt even see a mile away

 

Also true, San Andreas Draw Distance was LESS than Vice City and GTA3!! On average, Vice City had roughly 1600 FarClip, Highest at 2000 FarClip, Lowest at 150 FarClip (Fog). San Andreas had an average of 400 FarClip, Highest at 800 FarClip, Lowest at 100 FarClip.

 

Grand Theft Auto V? Well, let's take a look, far_clip 5000.00. Lowest being 4500.00 for Foggy, the game uses depth of field and blurs and other effects to create the distance hazing and blurs in the game.

 

edit: So in view, Draw Distance alone, GTAV is slightly greater than 6x the MAXIMUM San Andreas Draw Distance, so for those PC users, go and edit the timecyc to have those farclip values and see how it will make the "massive" San Andreas look.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Ash_735

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

Draw distance, that is all.

SA felt bigger because you could'nt even see a mile away

 

Also true, San Andreas Draw Distance was LESS than Vice City and GTA3!! On average, Vice City had roughly 1600 FarClip, Highest at 2000 FarClip, Lowest at 150 FarClip (Fog). San Andreas had an average of 400 FarClip, Highest at 800 FarClip, Lowest at 100 FarClip.

 

Grand Theft Auto V? Well, let's take a look, far_clip 5000.00. Lowest being 4500.00 for Foggy, the game uses depth of field and blurs and other effects to create the distance hazing and blurs in the game.

 

Damn. That's a huge increase.

 

Now, I want to know what you think about a theory user _Kindled_ proposed in this thread:

 

He said that SA looked small because of the draw distance mod, and if GTA 5 did the same (No draw distance, everything was visible) that it would also look small. I didn't agree. What say you?

[Ash_735]

 

 

Draw distance, that is all.

SA felt bigger because you could'nt even see a mile away

 

Also true, San Andreas Draw Distance was LESS than Vice City and GTA3!! On average, Vice City had roughly 1600 FarClip, Highest at 2000 FarClip, Lowest at 150 FarClip (Fog). San Andreas had an average of 400 FarClip, Highest at 800 FarClip, Lowest at 100 FarClip.

 

Grand Theft Auto V? Well, let's take a look, far_clip 5000.00. Lowest being 4500.00 for Foggy, the game uses depth of field and blurs and other effects to create the distance hazing and blurs in the game.

 

Damn. That's a huge increase.

 

Now, I want to know what you think about a theory user _Kindled_ proposed in this thread:

 

He said that SA looked small because of the draw distance mod, and if GTA 5 did the same (No draw distance, everything was visible) that it would also look small. I didn't agree. What say you?

 

 

Well, ANYTHING can look small if you force the game to render out, if you go high enough on games like Skyrim, etc, and force the values up, it will seem small. But the fact is, GTAV doesn't look small with 6X the Maximum San Andreas, so if you want to increase GTAV to the point where it looks small, then apply the same to SA, it will look even smaller.

[zielarz119]

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

 

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

[Ash_735]

 

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

 

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

 

 

Close.

 

Anyway, just as a quick example, here's San Andreas with JUST the FarClip value being the same as GTAV's:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fog Distance, etc, remains unchanged. But it already shows that Las Venturas was visible from LS, and pretty much all of LS here was covered with GTAV's values.

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

 

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

 

You're not counting water. GTA SA can fit into GTA 5 3.5 times. The whole map, not just the land.

[Exkabewbikadid]

If I were to hold the opinion that SA had a greater scope, it would only be because of SA having three unique cities, regardless of actual map size compared to V. That plus all the countryside in between always made SA feel massive even to this day.

 

But personally I feel V created an even greater scope by introducing three unique protagonists into one storyline. And V's map is my favorite open world in any game so far. The amount of detail alone makes it dwarf all GTA maps before it.

[zielarz119]

 

 

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

 

You're not counting water. GTA SA can fit into GTA 5 3.5 times. The whole map, not just the land.

 

 

and tell me why should I include water?

anyway to make it clear

 

EDIT: servers are busy right now so probably you wont see the image until tomorrow

Edited December 6, 2013 by zielarz119

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

 

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

 

You're not counting water. GTA SA can fit into GTA 5 3.5 times. The whole map, not just the land.

 

 

and tell me why should I include water?

anyway to make it clear

 

EDIT: servers are busy right now so probably you wont see the image until tomorrow

 

You include water because it's part of the map. It's not just there for fun, it's fully explore-able.

 

You know, it's why R* made the claim "It's our biggest map yet and bigger than SA, 4, and RDR combined", and it's why it's 3.5x bigger than SA. It's not just the landmass. When counting ANY map, you include water.

Edited December 6, 2013 by TheMasterfocker

[zielarz119]

to be honest, how many times in free-roam you scubadiving? the main map where you play is the island/land. yeah its nice to have underwater but its there because it should be and as you probably notice the underwater is not too detailed (ok maybe for the first 50m but then there is just rocks)

Edited December 6, 2013 by zielarz119

[Geralt of Rivia]

to be honest, how many times in free-roam you scubadiving? the main map where you play is the island/land. yeah its nice to have underwater but its there because it should be and as you probably notice the underwater is not too detailed (ok maybe for the first 50m but then there is just rocks)

Quite a bit, actually. I love the underwater. There's a bunch of stuff to find and explore.

 

And, it doesn't really matter if it's useful/good/whatever, it's considered part of the map, because it is part of the map.

 

If you really don't want to count V's water, then you can't count SA's water, which would mean a re-measure, and nobody wants to go through that trouble for something so stupid.

[SAVILLAIN]

you're right!

 

GTA V is nowhere near the size or scope of San Andreas ..... it surpasses it

[zielarz119]

If you really don't want to count V's water, then you can't count SA's water, which would mean a re-measure, and nobody wants to go through that trouble for something so stupid.

 

I included empty alamo sea and useless mountains (especially mt chilliad and the one next to fort zancudo.. josiah?) so i think its fine.

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

If you really don't want to count V's water, then you can't count SA's water, which would mean a re-measure, and nobody wants to go through that trouble for something so stupid.

 

I included empty alamo sea and useless mountains (especially mt chilliad and the one next to fort zancudo.. josiah?) so i think its fine.

 

Well yeah, of course you included the, they're part of the landmass.

 

Why do you keep trying to reduce V's map size? You seem to be looking for reasons to.

 

The water is part of V's map. Period. There's no argument. It's the reason why it's detailed and explore-able. It's also how V's map is the biggest GTA map, and is bigger than SA, 4, and RDR. You can't take away the water and compare it. It just doesn't work like that. It's not fair. You include the whole map for every map.

[DeafMetal]

 

 

 

Draw distance, that is all.

SA felt bigger because you could'nt even see a mile away

 

Also true, San Andreas Draw Distance was LESS than Vice City and GTA3!! On average, Vice City had roughly 1600 FarClip, Highest at 2000 FarClip, Lowest at 150 FarClip (Fog). San Andreas had an average of 400 FarClip, Highest at 800 FarClip, Lowest at 100 FarClip.

 

Grand Theft Auto V? Well, let's take a look, far_clip 5000.00. Lowest being 4500.00 for Foggy, the game uses depth of field and blurs and other effects to create the distance hazing and blurs in the game.

 

Damn. That's a huge increase.

 

Now, I want to know what you think about a theory user _Kindled_ proposed in this thread:

 

He said that SA looked small because of the draw distance mod, and if GTA 5 did the same (No draw distance, everything was visible) that it would also look small. I didn't agree. What say you?

 

 

Well, ANYTHING can look small if you force the game to render out, if you go high enough on games like Skyrim, etc, and force the values up, it will seem small. But the fact is, GTAV doesn't look small with 6X the Maximum San Andreas, so if you want to increase GTAV to the point where it looks small, then apply the same to SA, it will look even smaller.

 

You should make V's draw distance the same as SA's when the PC version comes out.

[IDAS Leader]

 

Flying use a hunter or maverick: SA 2:00

Flying use a hunter or maverick: 5 took about 5:00

 

San Andreas map is square shape when V's map is rectangle shape

and where you got those informations about square miles?

 

Legit article's such as Wikipedia, and blogs. Besides it makes sense if you fly over SA's map and the distance only takes 2 minutes, when GTA 5 map takes 5 mins.

Running over the map

GTA 5 60 minutes

San andreas 18 minutes

Do it yourself, SA is tiny.

[IDAS Leader]

 

Manners, you lack them.

If you'd care enough to actually read what I posted, I may be more inclined to be somewhat polite.

 

I read you post and I realized my mistake, you just need to stop being so defensive.

[IDAS Leader]

 

I measured each game the exact same way. Using the in-game stats to measure distance traveled when walking gives you this:

 

 

 

 

SA map is about 10-15% too big and IV's map is a bit too small compared to V (up to 10% max)

 

I agree with you saying that SA is a bit too big, but LC is the correct size, it's not bigger than The city of los santos.

[IDAS Leader]

 

V is about 3.5x times bigger than SA, Using Math to determine that.

 

3.5 X 14 = 49

 

SA 14² miles

 

V 49² miles

 

On your picture, You should be able to fit 3 and half SA Maps into V's.

 

Math

 

are you dumb? math? where the f*ck you got 49 f*cking squre miles for V?

 

That's all true, get over it SA is nowhere as big as GTA 5

[IDAS Leader]

 

 

If you really don't want to count V's water, then you can't count SA's water, which would mean a re-measure, and nobody wants to go through that trouble for something so stupid.

 

I included empty alamo sea and useless mountains (especially mt chilliad and the one next to fort zancudo.. josiah?) so i think its fine.

 

Well yeah, of course you included the, they're part of the landmass.

 

Why do you keep trying to reduce V's map size? You seem to be looking for reasons to.

 

The water is part of V's map. Period. There's no argument. It's the reason why it's detailed and explore-able. It's also how V's map is the biggest GTA map, and is bigger than SA, 4, and RDR. You can't take away the water and compare it. It just doesn't work like that. It's not fair. You include the whole map for every map.

 

Even if you do remove the shore line water, the land mass is still bigger GTA San andreas.

[IDAS Leader]

 

 

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

 

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

 

You're not counting water. GTA SA can fit into GTA 5 3.5 times. The whole map, not just the land.

 

You don't even need the water near the shore line. GTA 5's land mass is big enough to hold LC and SA

[IDAS Leader]

 

Eugh, should I? Should I really reveal the exact size? That should be CP's role, let's just say we modders have found the exact size of GTAV's map, and shock horror, yes, it's bigger than San Andreas, DUH. All I'll say is that BOTH San Andreas and GTA IV were 6km X 6km grids. San Andreas filled all the Grid Space, where as Liberty City and Alderney had a lot of space south of the map where it just had water, with the actual city space being closer to 6km X 4km.

 

GTA V is about 7km wide on average and about 12-14km from south to north of the map (according to the ingame map and GPS) so GTA V map is about 2.2 times bigger than San Andreas

 

Actually 3.5 times bigger.

[Killerdude]

 

 

Manners, you lack them.

If you'd care enough to actually read what I posted, I may be more inclined to be somewhat polite.

 

I read you post and I realized my mistake, you just need to stop being so defensive.

 

Well, Then I apologize, Let us move on.

[IDAS Leader]

 

 

I measured each game the exact same way. Using the in-game stats to measure distance traveled when walking gives you this:

 

 

 

 

SA map is about 10-15% too big and IV's map is a bit too small compared to V (up to 10% max)

 

IV is fine, just SA is way off the scale.

 

Yeah San andreas only goes a few miles out the city of LS,

[IDAS Leader]

 

 

 

Manners, you lack them.

If you'd care enough to actually read what I posted, I may be more inclined to be somewhat polite.

 

I read you post and I realized my mistake, you just need to stop being so defensive.

 

Well, Then I apologize, Let us move on.

 

Sorry