Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[DuPz0r]

Just now, Orfan Loom said:

But they told us every tree was placed by hand...

Yeah i'm sure they did. But some trees might just be copies of other trees on the map, to save on memory.

[Orfan Loom]

Well, that's reasonable, in a forest.

But I doubt they would copy and paste a lonely tree in the middle of nowhere. 

[Pudgehodge]

11 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

Yeah i'm sure they did. But some trees might just be copies of other trees on the map, to save on memory.

Absolutely. The majority of the trees are guaranteed duplicates. I'm sure they also have plenty of unique trees that are only found in 1 (or a few) locations, but there's absolutely no way they hand crafted every tree differently. There are plenty of trees I've seen already that resemble the lone tree. I agree that we shouldn't compare trees unless there is other evidence surrounding the tree that matches up. I'm sure there are plenty of scattered trees in areas like Scarlett Meadows, Raonoke, where Great Plains transitions to Tall Trees, etc.

 

That being said, it looks like they have a wide variety of trees. I'm positive there will be plenty of duplicates, but as long as there is enough variety and they are hand placed, then duplicates will likely be hard to notice unless you look hard. I think it's also possible that they might have different "varieties" of the same tree.. like the same tree trunk and branches, but one variety might be full of large green leaves, while another might have little to no leaves. Of course this could also have something to do with seasons in the game, but you could still see varieties of the same tree with less/ more leaves in the same season/ area to make more trees look different.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Pudgehodge

[Len Lfc]

5 minutes ago, Orfan Loom said:

Well, that's reasonable, in a forest.

But I doubt they would copy and paste a lonely tree in the middle of nowhere. 

It actually makes a lot more sense to do that. As there aren't other trees nearby to compare against, and tell they're duplicates.

[Cutter De Blanc]

Gotta do some in-depth tree analysis

[OpyeX]

https://imgur.com/qGfZgXl Compared RDR1&2 Armadillo side by side. 

[AzBat360]

3 hours ago, Chinese Takeout said:

the only road (within the shot) appears to be parallel to the track and clearly continues on in both directions (hence the signpost), and then there's the road he's on, which goes straight toward the camera...

The signpost behind him has at least 3 directions (Green City is in the Green direction, Yellow City is in the Yellow direction, and Red City is in the Red direction). Where do you think this RR Xing is on the map?

In trying to locate this I determined that the leaked map has a railroad in a different place. I'm on mobile right now & can't link photos easily, but look at the Brandywine Drop pano & you will see the railroad go East on the North side of the pond & then turn South along the East side of Butcher Creek. You'll also see a 3-way railroad interchange just North of Butcher Creek too. It must give another route to Annesburg from the West. The leaked map shows the railroad on the West side of the creek & pond & no connection to Annesburg except from the North & South. Never noticed the map to be so wrong about the railroad.

Edited October 8, 2018 by AzBat360

[e1999KrayzieBone]

48 minutes ago, AzBat360 said:

In trying to locate this I determined that the leaked map has a railroad in a different place. I'm on mobile right now & can't link photos easily, but look at the Brandywine Drop pano & you will see the railroad go East on the North side of the pond & then turn South along the East side of Butcher Creek. You'll also see a 3-way railroad interchange just North of Butcher Creek too. It must give another route to Annesburg from the West. The leaked map shows the railroad on the West side of the creek & pond & no connection to Annesburg except from the North & South. Never noticed the map to be so wrong about the railroad.

 

To me, the railroad appeared to be photoshopped in, among other things, so I won’t be surprised if it’s not 100% accurate. The light brown trails also looked to be drawn in via photoshop. Only the roads (black) look like they are part of the actual map when the photo was taken, but I’m not totally sold that’s true either.

 

My theory is that when the photo of the leaked map was taken, it was simply just a terrain map and literally everything else had to be shopped in. That’s why I’ve never trusted anything but the water and the terrain, and the level of detail in the Southwestern portion of the map outside of the boundary (where New Austin would be) always kind of confirmed my theory that it would return. Everything other than terrain and water, from the roads to the trails to the “edge of world” boundaries, just look obviously drawn in after the fact, which is why I don’t fully trust any of it.

 

Was it ‘shopped in by someone with intimate knowledge of the actual map? Absolutely...but don’t treat it as the Gospel.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by e1999KrayzieBone

[SneakyDeaky]

8 hours ago, Pudgehodge said:

I think we're looking at the same background region in this image, but from a different angle:

I'm not sure if we've actually pinned a location for this image

 

I'm curious about where other people think this location is.

Hey, I find this shot interesting as I can't figure out the placement myself. But this other shot is interesting.

This is the first frame of that scene of Blackwater and WE in trailer 3. I, personally, think these two similarities I've marked are the same. But that's just IMO.




 

Edited October 9, 2018 by SneakyDeaky

[Pudgehodge]

56 minutes ago, SneakyDeaky said:

Hey, I find this shot interesting as I can't figure out the placement myself. But this other shot is interesting.

This is the first frame of that scene of Blackwater and WE in trailer 3. I, personally, think these two similarities I've marked are the same. But that's just IMO.




 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I compared those 2 images about a week ago, and the white looking cliff was one of the similarities I also saw. Didn't notice the similar hill in the back but it definitely could be the same hill.

 

The carriage image is definitely somewhere around the border of Scarlett Meadows and The Heartlands and close to the coast of the Lake since we can see Blackwater, Great Plains, Tall Trees and Cochinay in the background. The thing that was throwing me off between the 2 images when comparing them is the trees in the background behind the cliffs. In the Micah image, there are tons of trees on the left side of the image (near/ behind the white cliff), but the further right you go, the less trees there seem to be. But when we look at the carriage image, there seem to be barely any trees (near/ behind the white cliff). It could be that the hazy lighting in the carriage image is making the trees/ forest hard to see (and they're further back from the few scattered trees that are near the white cliff), but it's hard to be definitive about that, and it just seems strange that if there was a forest back there, it would be so hard to see when there are nearby trees that are scattered and are very dark/ easy to see.

 

It still could make sense though.. the red hill you pointed out is much further away from the white cliff in the Micah image, so if they are the same cliffs and hills, that would have to mean that the Micah image is taken from further northwest of the carriage image. In other words, further up the edge of the lake towards the Dakota crossing. I was speculating before that the Micah image might be "Clemens Cove" because of the cliff that seems to stick out in the background (between Arthur and Micah). It could be the point of land that sticks out into the lake and forms a cove. If this is the case, then the distance between the red hill and the white cliff should actually be further away in the carriage image (rather than it being further away in the Micah image). The background cliffs across the lake do look closer in the Micah image though, so that's one of the reasons I'm speculating on Clemens Cove. It could also be that the red hills in the 2 images are different hills.

 

It's still just mainly the trees that are throwing me off, since you should be able to see more of them from the angle of the carriage image. I suppose it could also be possible that it's a draw distance thing and the trees can't be seen from that distance, the trailer is 5 months old and maybe the draw distance in that part of the map wasn't fully perfected at that point in development.. it is outside of the map after all (as far as we know), so maybe it looks different in the final product compared to how it looks in this trailer, and maybe the only reason we can see the trees in the Micah image is because they're closer to the trees than in the carriage image. I should also mention that I've compared these images to that location across the lake in RDR, and there are plenty of trees across the lake in RDR, though the cliffs seem to be much higher in RDR2 if that's the same place (which makes sense if they're planning on using the cliffs to border off that side of the lake/ river). 

 

I'm going to further dissect and compare these images to try to get more evidence on this theory. I'll try to provide some comparison images. Apologies if this was a bit of a rant.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Pudgehodge

[Chinese Takeout]

11 minutes ago, Pudgehodge said:

The carriage image is definitely somewhere around the border of Scarlett Meadows and The Heartlands and close to the coast of the Lake since we can see Blackwater, Great Plains, Tall Trees and Cochinay in the background.

This image explains the location of the stagecoach shot...

 

Quote

 

The thing that was throwing me off between the 2 images when comparing them is the trees in the background behind the cliffs. In the Micah image, there are tons of trees on the left side of the image (near/ behind the white cliff), but the further right you go, the less trees there seem to be. But when we look at the carriage image, there seem to be barely any trees (near/ behind the white cliff). It could be that the hazy lighting in the carriage image is making the trees/ forest hard to see (and they're further back from the few scattered trees that are near the white cliff), but it's hard to be definitive about that, and it just seems strange that if there was a forest back there, it would be so hard to see when there are nearby trees that are scattered and are very dark/ easy to see.

 

It still could make sense though.. the red hill you pointed out is much further away from the white cliff in the Micah image, so if they are the same cliffs and hills, that would have to mean that the Micah image is taken from further northwest of the carriage image. In other words, further up the edge of the lake towards the Dakota crossing. I was speculating before that the Micah image might be "Clemens Cove" because of the cliff that seems to stick out in the background (between Arthur and Micah). It could be the point of land that sticks out into the lake and forms a cove. If this is the case, it does make sense. The background cliffs across the lake do look closer in the Micah image (they would indeed be closer if it is Clemens Cove).

 

It's still just the trees that are throwing me off, since you should be able to see them from the angle of the carriage image. I suppose it could also be possible that it's a draw distance thing and the trees can't be seen from that distance, the trailer is 5 months old and maybe the draw distance in that part of the map wasn't fully perfected at that point in development.. it is outside of the map after all (as far as we know). I should also mention that I've compared these images to that location across the lake in RDR, and there are plenty of trees across the lake in RDR, though the cliffs seem to be much higher in RDR2 if that's the same place (which makes sense if they're planning on using the cliffs to border off that side of the lake/ river). 

 

I'm going to further dissect and compare these images to try to get more evidence on this theory. I'll try to provide some comparison images. Apologies if this was a bit of a rant.

 

 

The location of the trees on the far bank (as seen in the "Brothers make mistakes" scene) was a mystery since that video came out in May. The location wasn't really solidified until the GP2 trailer -AND- the Previews Image of John, Arthur, Micah & Bill riding were released. Now there's a fair consensus that we see these trees lining the far bank of the Lannahechee/Flatiron Lake, in front of the "sweeping deserts" beyond:

 

But the precise location of Micah and Arthur, IMO, is still up for grabs. Your suggestion that they're near the Cove is a good one...

I personally placed them not too far from there...a bit further Northwest...about where The Heartlands meets Scarlett Meadows...Which would also be just a touch Southeast of the location of the Stagecoach scene...

 

But, by and large, I think we've narrowed down the list of possible locations to somewhere in that general vicinity.

 

[Fachewachewa]

3 hours ago, e1999KrayzieBone said:

To me, the railroad appeared to be photoshopped in, among other things, so I won’t be surprised if it’s not 100% accurate. The light brown trails also looked to be drawn in via photoshop. Only the roads (black) look like they are part of the actual map when the photo was taken, but I’m not totally sold that’s true either.

 

My theory is that when the photo of the leaked map was taken, it was simply just a terrain map and literally everything else had to be shopped in. That’s why I’ve never trusted anything but the water and the terrain, and the level of detail in the Southwestern portion of the map outside of the boundary (where New Austin would be) always kind of confirmed my theory that it would return. Everything other than terrain and water, from the roads to the trails to the “edge of world” boundaries, just look obviously drawn in after the fact, which is why I don’t fully trust any of it.

 

Was it ‘shopped in by someone with intimate knowledge of the actual map? Absolutely...but don’t treat it as the Gospel.

I guess at one point, everything was "photoshopped"... but it was done by people in the team working on the map, because that's how they draw things on it?

Everything turned out to be true or really close, same goes for train tracks. We have specific matches, like the way the tracks go along the water in Annesburg, or how it separates south of St Denis.
Sure, we also have proof that it changed during dev, mainly with Valentine train stop, and how the tracks pass just in front of the town.

But for all we know, the map wasn't even the last version when it leaked two years ago (In fact, even the "water and terrain" for Lemoyne doesn't seem to be final). Having things drawn on a map doesn't mean it's set in stone, things evolve, games get playtested, balanced, etc.

Just because we can't find an exact match for a screenshot doesn't mean everything that doesn't fit was added by the leaker. Things just changed.
But you had the right conclusion, we can't rely 100% on what we see on the leaked map, but I think people know that

And for the Butcher Creek tracks, I think the split in Bluegill Marsh was just move to the north. I'm sure during dev they realized they wanted a direct line from Annesburg to the Heartlands without going that far south.

[Chinese Takeout]

11 minutes ago, Fachewachewa said:

I guess at one point, everything was "photoshopped"... but it was done by people in the team working on the map, because that's how they draw things on it?

Everything turned out to be true or really close, same goes for train tracks. We have specific matches, like the way the tracks go along the water in Annesburg, or how it separates south of St Denis.
Sure, we also have proof that it changed during dev, mainly with Valentine train stop, and how the tracks pass just in front of the town.

But for all we know, the map wasn't even the last version when it leaked two years ago (In fact, even the "water and terrain" for Lemoyne doesn't seem to be final). Having things drawn on a map doesn't mean it's set in stone, things evolve, games get playtested, balanced, etc.

Just because we can't find an exact match for a screenshot doesn't mean everything that doesn't fit was added by the leaker. Things just changed.
But you had the right conclusion, we can't rely 100% on what we see on the leaked map, but I think people know that

And for the Butcher Creek tracks, I think the split in Bluegill Marsh was just move to the north. I'm sure during dev they realized they wanted a direct line from Annesburg to the Heartlands without going that far south.

Yeah, I thought the same thing. If by "photoshopped" he meant "Rockstar developers used many tools to develop RDR2, some developed in-house, some 3rd-party tools, like Adobe Photoshop," then yeah...I'm sure they used "Photoshop" to create and place many assets. But, usually when someone says "that looks photoshopped," it means "altered from the original in order to mislead."

Spoiler

 Many elements from the Leaked Map have obviously been changed in the last 2 years, but what's amazing to me is how much of it is validated by every screen and video they release.

[SneakyDeaky]

4 hours ago, Pudgehodge said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I compared those 2 images about a week ago, and the white looking cliff was one of the similarities I also saw. Didn't notice the similar hill in the back but it definitely could be the same hill.

 

The carriage image is definitely somewhere around the border of Scarlett Meadows and The Heartlands and close to the coast of the Lake since we can see Blackwater, Great Plains, Tall Trees and Cochinay in the background. The thing that was throwing me off between the 2 images when comparing them is the trees in the background behind the cliffs. In the Micah image, there are tons of trees on the left side of the image (near/ behind the white cliff), but the further right you go, the less trees there seem to be. But when we look at the carriage image, there seem to be barely any trees (near/ behind the white cliff). It could be that the hazy lighting in the carriage image is making the trees/ forest hard to see (and they're further back from the few scattered trees that are near the white cliff), but it's hard to be definitive about that, and it just seems strange that if there was a forest back there, it would be so hard to see when there are nearby trees that are scattered and are very dark/ easy to see.

 

It still could make sense though.. the red hill you pointed out is much further away from the white cliff in the Micah image, so if they are the same cliffs and hills, that would have to mean that the Micah image is taken from further northwest of the carriage image. In other words, further up the edge of the lake towards the Dakota crossing. I was speculating before that the Micah image might be "Clemens Cove" because of the cliff that seems to stick out in the background (between Arthur and Micah). It could be the point of land that sticks out into the lake and forms a cove. If this is the case, then the distance between the red hill and the white cliff should actually be further away in the carriage image (rather than it being further away in the Micah image). The background cliffs across the lake do look closer in the Micah image though, so that's one of the reasons I'm speculating on Clemens Cove. It could also be that the red hills in the 2 images are different hills.

 

It's still just mainly the trees that are throwing me off, since you should be able to see more of them from the angle of the carriage image. I suppose it could also be possible that it's a draw distance thing and the trees can't be seen from that distance, the trailer is 5 months old and maybe the draw distance in that part of the map wasn't fully perfected at that point in development.. it is outside of the map after all (as far as we know), so maybe it looks different in the final product compared to how it looks in this trailer, and maybe the only reason we can see the trees in the Micah image is because they're closer to the trees than in the carriage image. I should also mention that I've compared these images to that location across the lake in RDR, and there are plenty of trees across the lake in RDR, though the cliffs seem to be much higher in RDR2 if that's the same place (which makes sense if they're planning on using the cliffs to border off that side of the lake/ river). 

 

I'm going to further dissect and compare these images to try to get more evidence on this theory. I'll try to provide some comparison images. Apologies if this was a bit of a rant.

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I was too thinking Clemens Cove is in the Micah shot, which I think matches the map. My hill was off, there's a lot of hills that Chinese Takeout has marked above me. As for the cliffs, I don't think they lie.




As for the trees? You can see some of them in the right place. But for the rest, at the time period of May? Perhaps draw distance,  camera trickery, unfinished work...

Edited October 9, 2018 by SneakyDeaky

[GTADKNUT]

Just talked to my friend at Gamereactor, he told me the map was covered in fog of war thru the 2nd playthrough.

 

He told me he was pretty sure, that the whole old map, will not be in the game; Sounded like he had it confirmed by a R* employee - Since he the said, they said Blackwater and large portions of the map are in the game, but not thieves landing•

 

Sorry guys.

 

But to me this says, there are sections of the map we have no effin clue about

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by GTADKNUT

[MarlboroMan1995]

21 minutes ago, GTADKNUT said:

Just talked to my friend at Gamereactor, he told me the map was covered in fog of war thru the 2nd playthrough.

 

He told me he was pretty sure, that the whole old map, will not be in the game; Sounded like he had it confirmed by a R* employee - Since he the said, they said Blackwater and large portions of the map are in the game, but not thieves landing•

 

Sorry guys.

 

But to me this says, there are sections of the map we have no effin clue about

 

Well on the leaked map there are two dots indicating locations in thieves landing...

[GTADKNUT]

12 minutes ago, MarlboroMan1995 said:

Well on the leaked map there are two dots indicating locations in thieves landing...

Im just quoting what he said, he could be wrong like he said, nothing is set in stone.

 

But he was pretty sure we will not see the whole old map.

 

Btw tho, I don't think indications guarantee anything.

Edited October 9, 2018 by GTADKNUT

[Fido_le_muet]

I don't see how there could be old locations like Armadillo without Thieves Landing. 

 

[GTADKNUT]

1 minute ago, Fido_le_muet said:

I don't see how there could be old locations like Armadillo without Thieves Landing. 

 

Take the quote for what it is.

 

It may be there, but don't expect the whole old map anyway.

[DuPz0r]

This brings the self contained "North Yankton effect" back into perspective, if true. That's the main reason i didnt add any locations other than what we saw to my map, i've always been split between a full RDR1 map or just segments of it.

 

I think R* is in a position where they cant confirm or deny. If the RDR1 map isnt in the game and the say "no its not", it will cause some kind of internet backlash and probably put a small dent in sales.

 

If they say "yes", and it's not the whole map, same outcome.

 

If they say "yes" and it is all in the game, then the surprise is ruined.

 

One more location from the old map is all we need to prove the existence of NA. As long as it's another new/old location and not the same area in Cholla Springs. If we get a NP location, well that will just blow us out if the water.

 

Time will tell. Hopefully in the form of a game release trailer/tv commercial in the next week or so with more small map reveals.

Edited October 9, 2018 by DuPz0r

[Dougie Jones]

20 minutes ago, DuPz0r said:

This brings the self contained "North Yankton effect" back into perspective, if true. That's the main reason i didnt add any locations other than what we saw to my map, i've always been split between a full RDR1 map or just segments of it.

 

I think R* is in a position where they cant confirm or deny. If the RDR1 map isnt in the game and the say "no its not", it will cause some kind of internet backlash and probably put a small dent in sales.

 

If they say "yes", and it's not the whole map, same outcome.

 

If they say "yes" and it is all in the game, then the surprise is ruined.

 

One more location from the old map is all we need to prove the existence of NA. As long as it's another new/old location and not the same area in Cholla Springs. If we get a NP location, well that will just blow us out if the water.

 

Time will tell. Hopefully in the form of a game release trailer/tv commercial in the next week or so with more small map reveals.

I dunno, I really get the feeling we're getting New Austin back. With as much as it's been mentioned and the glimpses we've seen, I feel like it's too much to just end up being North Yankton 2.0

 

Did any of the GTA V trailers show off North Yankton so casually before release?

[Fido_le_muet]

19 minutes ago, Dougie Jones said:

 

Did any of the GTA V trailers show off North Yankton so casually before release?

I think there may have been an action shot from the Paleto Heist in one of the trailers.

 

To me there are only 2 possible options : 

1. We have a North Yankton type sequence in Armadillo 

2. NA is there entirely. Don't see how they could cut NA at say Cholla Springs. They won't put an invisible wall there or add a big cliff that would magically disappear 12 years later. 

They have to use a geographical feature (river, mountain) as a limit. This isn't the Animus.  

[ivarblaauw]

Or the map scaled to what you have discovered. 

I have no idea how they will not put New Austin in the game. 

 

The only way I see a possible explanation is that it won't be available until later in the game until we can return to Blackwater and the entire map is opened up. 

[cremefraiche]

42 minutes ago, Dougie Jones said:

I dunno, I really get the feeling we're getting New Austin back. With as much as it's been mentioned and the glimpses we've seen, I feel like it's too much to just end up being North Yankton 2.0

 

Did any of the GTA V trailers show off North Yankton so casually before release?

HeeelllllOooOOo!

 

Also, no I don't think was any north yankton in any of the trailers, except they did a promo postcard thing featuring certain locations in V and North Yankton was one of them

[SeniorDerp]

I'm still sticking with the Trusted Reviews leak since so far it's proven to be entirely accurate, even down to naming "Eagle Eye" as well as Armadillo returning. Right now there's no reasons to think the original map won't be rolled in with the new map unless they only use the old map for RDO to add to the playable area

[Gangsta Braze]

1 hour ago, Dougie Jones said:

I dunno, I really get the feeling we're getting New Austin back. With as much as it's been mentioned and the glimpses we've seen, I feel like it's too much to just end up being North Yankton 2.0

 

Did any of the GTA V trailers show off North Yankton so casually before release?

If anything that island region could possibly be north Yankton 2.0 

[Tonesta]

39 minutes ago, SeniorDerp said:

I'm still sticking with the Trusted Reviews leak since so far it's proven to be entirely accurate, even down to naming "Eagle Eye" as well as Armadillo returning. Right now there's no reasons to think the original map won't be rolled in with the new map unless they only use the old map for RDO to add to the playable area

Sure, but the Trusted Reviews leak only stated that Armadillo and Ridgewood were returning. It makes no mention of anywhere else on the original map.

 

You could believe that whole leak, and also that Armadillo = North Yankton 2.0 without being inconsistent.

[seegkilla]

1 minute ago, Tonesta said:

Sure, but the Trusted Reviews leak only stated that Armadillo and Ridgewood were returning. It makes no mention of anywhere else on the original map.

 

You could believe that whole leak, and also that Armadillo = North Yankton 2.0 without being inconsistent.

How would they do the north yankon thing with armadillo?

it doesnt even make sense, they would put invisible walls all around but still have to model half of new austin just so can do a scene in armadillo. 

 

What about the sweeping deserts ?

[Tonesta]

1 minute ago, seegkilla said:

How would they do the north yankon thing with armadillo?

it doesnt even make sense, they would put invisible walls all around but still have to model half of new austin just so can do a scene in armadillo. 

 

What about the sweeping deserts ?

Hey, not saying it will happen, only that it’s not impossible.

 

If you ventured out of the path you were supposed to take in North Yankton, you failed the mission. The same could happen here.

 

Sweeping Deserts would then be slightly misleading advertising because you could only see them not free roam through them. But Rockstar have from time to time exaggerated in their advertising.

 

For what it’s worth, I do think that the whole of NA will be replayable, but it’s not yet guaranteed.

[BretMaverick777]

3 hours ago, GTADKNUT said:

Im just quoting what he said, he could be wrong like he said, nothing is set in stone.

 

But he was pretty sure we will not see the whole old map.

 

Btw tho, I don't think indications guarantee anything.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one completely unreliable source in this equation.  

Dude has no clue, so there's no reason to repeat hearsay about hearsay about hearsay.  

8 minutes ago, Tonesta said:

Hey, not saying it will happen, only that it’s not impossible.

 

If you ventured out of the path you were supposed to take in North Yankton, you failed the mission. The same could happen here.

 

Sweeping Deserts would then be slightly misleading advertising because you could only see them not free roam through them. But Rockstar have from time to time exaggerated in their advertising.

 

For what it’s worth, I do think that the whole of NA will be replayable, but it’s not yet guaranteed.

Why?

Why do some of you insist on doing this again and again?

If you applied logic and common sense as much as you did devil's advocacy, this would be a much better world to live in.   Rockstar is in the business of selling games, not selling r*ckteases.   They make money by selling working maps, not invisible walls.  It behooves them nothing, it profits them nothing, to make invisible walls.  Anywhere, anytime.  Let alone MARKET AND ADVERTISE those invisible walls. 

 

Here's the logical, common sense solution:   Rockstar are showing us pictures of New Austin and Nuevo Paraiso because they're in the goddam game, and they want us to play there.   Because WE want to play there, and they damn well know it.