Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[MarlboroMan1995]

So, maybe we’re in for a surprise with the map? What do you guys think?

[Svip]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but people have been considering whether some of the states we're seeing in RDR2 are supposed to be or based on Tennessee, but since it is mentioned by name on one of the armoury posters, I think it is safe to envision that we only see something based on the Rockies and not the Appalachian mountains.  Maybe inspired, but not supposed to be those.

[ivarblaauw]

1 hour ago, MarlboroMan1995 said:

So, maybe we’re in for a surprise with the map? What do you guys think?

If it is not scaled up, then 100%

[BretMaverick777]

9 hours ago, Chinese Takeout said:

I feel like most of. the mappers on this board think it's part of New Hanover. I decided to move it to Amborino on my map when it was confirmed that Big Valley was part of West Elizabeth, thus shrinking Ambarino to a tiny little state/territory. I feel like the map is more balanced this way. But, it's just a guess. we'll know the answer very soon!

I think some of us concluded Cumberland Forest was part of Ambarino when that Grizzlies mountain man outfit showed up under the PS4 exclusives....it mentions "forests of Ambarino."   Since there doesn't *appear* to be much in the way of forests in the Grizzlies, CF was "annexed."   And there's a certain logic to it.  But that's not official, by any means.  

3 hours ago, Svip said:

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but people have been considering whether some of the states we're seeing in RDR2 are supposed to be or based on Tennessee, but since it is mentioned by name on one of the armoury posters, I think it is safe to envision that we only see something based on the Rockies and not the Appalachian mountains.  Maybe inspired, but not supposed to be those.

?

Not sure what you're getting at.   If you're saying that if a real world location is mentioned by name in game lore, that automatically segregates it from being a playable location, that's a big leap without any justification.   And even if you applied that ill-logic, the Appalachians are much, MUCH bigger than just the Smoky Mountain section east of Knoxville TN (my backyard, in other words).   The Appalachians extend from Georgia all the way up to Maine.  And Roanoke Ridge, both visually and metaphorically, is a clear representation of the Appalachians.   Always has been.  

Edited October 13, 2018 by BretMaverick777

[Jabalous]

Although it's very tempting, I will personally avoid spoiling the actual map when it starts to leak. I will keep it a surprise as I progress in the story since it's part of the sense of discovery and exploration. Having the game downloaded from the store will also help in not having an access to a physical map.  

Edited October 13, 2018 by Jabalous

[BretMaverick777]

6 hours ago, RedDead91 said:

My question is though what do they mean by '2 screens', what on the map marks as having scrolled passed a screen to a second map screen

What people are conveniently leaving out is the fact that the previewer also said he scrolled 2 screens *across,* then TWICE as far *down.*   That's FOUR screens down.  

 

Regardless of what scale you want to apply to it, it means the BULK of the map goes far, far, far, far south of Valentine.  

So either you believe the map suddenly looks like this....

 

....or common sense will tell you it looks like this:

[2019Redifiv/2020Modifiv]

I might have found "proof" of the map being the biggest Rockstar map ever.

 

"And in addition, RDR 2 has the largest and densest map that has been to date in any game of the company".

 

This was reported back in may, when a select few were invited to the headquarters of Rockstar North in Scotland. 

 

They were shown a demo with Rob Nelson present, and therefore I think it would be safe to conclude that there is a difference between seeing the game in a hotel, with some " random" Rockstar PR reps present, and seeing the game demoed at the "headquarters of GTA" while in the presence of one of the key developers.

 

This leads me to one of two possible conclusions.

 

1. Even back then Rockstar had a finished sheet of bulletpoints the previewers received.

 

2. Either Rob himself or another developer states this as a fact in a way they made sure the journalists would not misinterpret.

 

What do you guys think ?

 

Edit : Another thing, is there a general agreement in here about GTA V being approximately twice as large as Red Dead Redemption(80 and 40 km2, respectively) ?

 

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by jevity

[Nutduster]

Here are my revised thoughts on the map, some in response to this last page or two of discussion.  After this I'm probably going to go dark and just wait for either the map to leak or the game to release.  At this point I feel like we're not learning much that is new and instead are just desperately trying to interpret really vague tidbits of information that may mean nothing.  Anyway:

 

- I don't think they upscaled the old map.  As was already pointed out, that is an absolute crapload of work; it also would really undermine the nostalgia factor of bringing it back in the first place; and there's nothing wrong with that map that requires upscaling to fix (though I'm sure they replaced all the assets and textures and the basic poly map with better versions, more appropriate to current gen).  So no, it's going to be about the same, give or take minor tweaks that will mostly relate to the different time period.

 

- I don't think this "zoomed out 2 or 4 screens of map" thing is very meaningful as a determiner of overall size; there are too many unknown variables, and we're still imagining that the previewer actually marked off screens rather than just estimating off the cuff.  The only useful takeaway from it IMO is that the map seems to be taller than it is wide.

 

- I am increasingly convinced of the return of Mexico, though there is still very little hard evidence - just a lot of soft evidence.

 

- I am not at all convinced of more/new Mexico areas.  An island south of the leaked map seems more probable to me.  But i have no reason to think that, just a gut feeling.

 

- I'm not convinced either of new stuff to the north of New Austin, but here's hoping!  Bring on the huge, Rockstar!

 

- Last but not least, all the talk about overall hugeness, largest Rockstar map ever, etc. really has me baffled.  It doesn't make a lot of sense unless either the leaked map was upscaled massively (like double its perceived size or more), or there are a lot of new areas that for some reason they are not showing us, or both.  The thing that really has me pessimistic still is that the previews have showed so little that can't be immediately pegged to a location on the leaked map or, in a couple small instances, the old map.  Contrary to popular belief I don't think Rockstar really is so highly invested in surprising us; I don't think they would force their marketing to stick to showing shots from 1/4 of the playable space if there was somewhere really eye-catching in these hypothetical new areas.  So... I am expecting the leaked map to some scale, I am expecting the old map at its established scale, I am expecting at least one small or medium surprise somewhere, but I don't know about anything else.  I definitely don't expect a massive amount of unknown territory.

[Borland12]

R* is obviously aware of map being leaked, so I think they show places from leaked part of the map, but don't show other parts because there is no necessity in showing them(it would spoil "new regions") and simply because there are a lot to show from our leaked map. 

[BlackJackthe3rd]

12 minutes ago, Borland12 said:

R* is obviously aware of map being leaked, so I think they show places from leaked part of the map, but don't show other parts because there is no necessity in showing them(it would spoil "new regions") and simply because there are a lot to show from our leaked map. 

But what if they were the ones leaking the map hmmmm

[e1999KrayzieBone]

4 hours ago, RedDead91 said:

Ah

Ah cheers man, that makes now. Wow, Liberty City was small as sh*t.

Yeah, I remember getting in a heli at the airport and being in Alderney (to pick up the hidden Sultan RS) in about 45 seconds.

[2019Redifiv/2020Modifiv]

1 hour ago, Nutduster said:

Here are my revised thoughts on the map, some in response to this last page or two of discussion.  After this I'm probably going to go dark and just wait for either the map to leak or the game to release.  At this point I feel like we're not learning much that is new and instead are just desperately trying to interpret really vague tidbits of information that may mean nothing.  Anyway:

 

- I don't think they upscaled the old map.  As was already pointed out, that is an absolute crapload of work; it also would really undermine the nostalgia factor of bringing it back in the first place; and there's nothing wrong with that map that requires upscaling to fix (though I'm sure they replaced all the assets and textures and the basic poly map with better versions, more appropriate to current gen).  So no, it's going to be about the same, give or take minor tweaks that will mostly relate to the different time period.

 

- I don't think this "zoomed out 2 or 4 screens of map" thing is very meaningful as a determiner of overall size; there are too many unknown variables, and we're still imagining that the previewer actually marked off screens rather than just estimating off the cuff.  The only useful takeaway from it IMO is that the map seems to be taller than it is wide.

 

- I am increasingly convinced of the return of Mexico, though there is still very little hard evidence - just a lot of soft evidence.

 

- I am not at all convinced of more/new Mexico areas.  An island south of the leaked map seems more probable to me.  But i have no reason to think that, just a gut feeling.

 

- I'm not convinced either of new stuff to the north of New Austin, but here's hoping!  Bring on the huge, Rockstar!

 

- Last but not least, all the talk about overall hugeness, largest Rockstar map ever, etc. really has me baffled.  It doesn't make a lot of sense unless either the leaked map was upscaled massively (like double its perceived size or more), or there are a lot of new areas that for some reason they are not showing us, or both.  The thing that really has me pessimistic still is that the previews have showed so little that can't be immediately pegged to a location on the leaked map or, in a couple small instances, the old map.  Contrary to popular belief I don't think Rockstar really is so highly invested in surprising us; I don't think they would force their marketing to stick to showing shots from 1/4 of the playable space if there was somewhere really eye-catching in these hypothetical new areas.  So... I am expecting the leaked map to some scale, I am expecting the old map at its established scale, I am expecting at least one small or medium surprise somewhere, but I don't know about anything else.  I definitely don't expect a massive amount of unknown territory.

Great post.

 

But what do you specifically think about the "biggest map Rockstar ever created" bulletpoint that multiple sources have kept repeating.

 

We know that every previewer received a 9 pages with bulletpoints and other info.

 

Why would ANY of these sources make the claim, unless they either were told by Rockstar or read it in the documentation.

 

It simply does not make any sense.

 

Do you agree?

Edited October 13, 2018 by jevity

[bakerach]

5 hours ago, Svip said:

Not sure if this has been brought up yet, but people have been considering whether some of the states we're seeing in RDR2 are supposed to be or based on Tennessee, but since it is mentioned by name on one of the armoury posters, I think it is safe to envision that we only see something based on the Rockies and not the Appalachian mountains.  Maybe inspired, but not supposed to be those.

They specifically mentioned something like the "Eastern Grizzlies" the other day and said they've got less snow and more fog.  That info, combined with all of the Appalachian names on the east side of the map, leave me fully convinced that Roanoke Ridge is the Appalachian region of the map.  It simply wouldn't make sense for it to be anything else.

[Non Funkable Token]

RDR1 map has a ton of unused space around. If they blur the whole thing and you see the screen, you can easily think the real map is bigger than it actually is.

 

I don't know about RDR2 but obviously some null space is gonna be present surrounding the playable area. Probably ocean space south of St. Denis too.

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, jevity said:

Great post.

 

But what do you specifically think about the "biggest map Rockstar ever created" bulletpoint that multiple sources have kept repeating.

 

We know that every previewer received a 9 pages with bulletpoints and other info.

 

Why would ANY of these sources make the claim, unless they either were told by Rockstar or read it in the documentation.

 

It simply does not make any sense.

 

Do you agree?

 

At this point it's been repeated by enough legitimate-seeming outlets that I am inclined to believe it's true. Though HOW it's true is a little puzzling - we know that the old map plus the leaked map at its original scale is smaller than GTA V, and not by just a little bit.  If they scaled the leaked map up a lot and/or added some new areas of some substance, it becomes possible.  Is it going to absolutely dwarf GTA V?  I doubt it.  It's been commonly said, but man, we gotta get around this thing on horseback.  Imagine driving nothing but a bicycle around GTA V, with no highways either, just lots of curvy back roads.  That map is enormous by those standards.  So in my mind, having a map that is more than, say, 25% bigger than that is almost contrary to what the game really requires or even would benefit from.  I imagine we'll do less back-and-forth riding for missions (RDR was loaded with that) but even so, damn, those are going to be some long rides.

 

I'm also still wondering, IF it's true, why Rockstar themselves have been keeping it basically under wraps.  Outlets are saying it but it's nowhere in their own PR campaign.  The only direct quote about the map size from them said they were more focused on quality and density than sheer size.  At the time that made me think it would be smaller than V.  Now I think it might be bigger, but barely so.  I do think they are semi-hiding the return of the old map (even though most people here think it's basically confirmed), but in the preorder phase, you'd think "our biggest map ever" would be a good selling point.  It's weird.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[2019Redifiv/2020Modifiv]

1 minute ago, Nutduster said:

 

At this point it's been repeated by enough legitimate-seeming outlets that I am inclined to believe it's true. Though HOW it's true is a little puzzling - we know that the old map plus the leaked map at its original scale is smaller than GTA V, and not by just a little bit.  If they scaled the leaked map up a lot and/or added some new areas of some substance, it becomes possible.  Is it going to absolutely dwarf GTA V?  I doubt it.  It's been commonly said, but man, we gotta get around this thing on horseback.  Imagine driving nothing but a bicycle around GTA V, with no highways either, just lots of curvy back roads.  That map is enormous by those standards.  So in my mind, having a map that is more than, say, 25% bigger than that is almost contrary to what the game really requires or even would benefit from.  I imagine we'll do less back-and-forth riding for missions (RDR was loaded with that) but even so, damn, those are going to be some long rides.

 

I'm also still wondering, IF it's true, why Rockstar themselves have been keeping it basically under wraps.  Outlets are saying it but it's nowhere in their own PR campaign.  The only direct quote about the map size from them said they were more focused on quality and density than sheer size.  At the time that made me think it would be smaller than V.  Now I think it might be bigger, but barely so.

Thank you for a detailed and interesting answer.

 

The part I still don't quite get is how come you(and many others) maintain that the leaked map, plus the old map, would not roughly be similar in size to GTA V?

 

GTA V is 80km2 and RDR is 40km2, don't you think that the leaked map, minus West Elizabeth, is big enough to rival the size of the old map?

 

 

 

 

 

[Nutduster]

9 minutes ago, jevity said:

The part I still don't quite get is how come you(and many others) maintain that the leaked map, plus the old map, would not roughly be similar in size to GTA V?

 

GTA V is 80km2 and RDR is 40km2, don't you think that the leaked map, minus West Elizabeth, is big enough to rival the size of the old map?

 

 

Take my answer with a grain of salt because I haven't done any scaling of these maps myself, but scale comparisons from trustworthy folks in the early days of GTA V held that it was about 3x the landmass vs. RDR, and the leaked map appears to be only about 50% more landmass than RDR's map (again, assuming it hasn't been scaled up since).  That doesn't add up to something quite as big as GTA V.  I believe it's a minority opinion that RDR's original map is half as large as GTA V's. I'm not willing to do the measurements myself, so I'm basically trusting majority opinion from people who showed their work back in the day. But I'd believe a compelling, detailed analysis that showed otherwise.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[BretMaverick777]

45 minutes ago, Fluffy Sock said:

RDR1 map has a ton of unused space around. If they blur the whole thing and you see the screen, you can easily think the real map is bigger than it actually is.

 

I don't know about RDR2 but obviously some null space is gonna be present surrounding the playable area. Probably ocean space south of St. Denis too.

Yeah, I'm starting to think a lot of the lower right map will be ocean more so than land.  Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic....makes sense there.  Maybe those brown spaces are more island than land mass...you could definitely put an accessible Guarma there, and maybe some Florida Keys, western Caribbean isles...Spanish-American War Cuba and/or Haiti make story sense.  Bahamian cays would be simple...just glorified sandbars in most cases. 

[ivarblaauw]

@Nutduster the map might be their biggest map yet, but it will most definitely be absolutely shattered in comparison with a dozen other titles on the current gen. That is my most logical explanation for them not using it in marketing. 

 

Although at this point everyone talks about it online, so it is actually still marketed as their biggest map yet xD

[BretMaverick777]

27 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

 

At this point it's been repeated by enough legitimate-seeming outlets that I am inclined to believe it's true. Though HOW it's true is a little puzzling - we know that the old map plus the leaked map at its original scale is smaller than GTA V, and not by just a little bit.  If they scaled the leaked map up a lot and/or added some new areas of some substance, it becomes possible.  Is it going to absolutely dwarf GTA V?  I doubt it.  It's been commonly said, but man, we gotta get around this thing on horseback.  Imagine driving nothing but a bicycle around GTA V, with no highways either, just lots of curvy back roads.  That map is enormous by those standards.  So in my mind, having a map that is more than, say, 25% bigger than that is almost contrary to what the game really requires or even would benefit from.  I imagine we'll do less back-and-forth riding for missions (RDR was loaded with that) but even so, damn, those are going to be some long rides.

 

I'm also still wondering, IF it's true, why Rockstar themselves have been keeping it basically under wraps.  Outlets are saying it but it's nowhere in their own PR campaign.  The only direct quote about the map size from them said they were more focused on quality and density than sheer size.  At the time that made me think it would be smaller than V.  Now I think it might be bigger, but barely so.  I do think they are semi-hiding the return of the old map (even though most people here think it's basically confirmed), but in the preorder phase, you'd think "our biggest map ever" would be a good selling point.  It's weird.

It's not weird if NA/NP (and other map add-ons) are DLC.   It makes more sense to add the RDR1 map after 1906, after the infamous ferry robbery and the (apparent) disappearance of Dutch and the Marstons to parts unknown.

[Nutduster]

I don't think the old map will be DLC though. If it is, they're being really shady with their marketing, showing us stuff in screenshots and gameplay videos that is clearly in (or near) those areas.  I think anything that is used in the pre-release marketing should be included in the base game at release, that's just how things should be done.

 

I also remain unconvinced that Rockstar has any interest in expanding the map via DLC.  They have no history of doing this.  Doesn't mean they can't, but the evidence that they might is lacking and the precedent is non-existent.  If they do I'll be happy as a clam though.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[Non Funkable Token]

12 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

I don't think the old map will be DLC though. If it is, they're being really shady with their marketing, showing us stuff in screenshots and gameplay videos that is clearly in (or near) those areas.  I think anything that is used in the pre-release marketing should be included in the base game at release, that's just how things should be done.

 

I also remain unconvinced that Rockstar has any interest in expanding the map via DLC.  They have no history of doing this.  Doesn't mean they can't, but the evidence that they might is lacking and the precedent is non-existent.  If they do I'll be happy as a clam though.

 

That's the logical reasoning, but it's R* the company we are talking about here. They've shown some stuff in GTAO trailers that was part of the dripfeed after all. 

 

Inb4 San Luis River Bridge opening soon™

Edited October 13, 2018 by Fluffy Sock

[Nutduster]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sock said:

 

That's the logical reasoning, but it's R* the company we are talking about here. They've shown some stuff in GTAO trailers that was part of the dripfeed after all.

 

True, but no one pays up front for GTA Online updates.  So I guess they can market it however they want.  But if you're marketing a standalone game that retails for $60+, all the stuff in that marketing should be in the game, more or less.  (Not counting early teaser trailers that come out before the preorder period, I suppose.)  They've talked about sweeping deserts, showed us lizards sunning themselves in what is clearly New Austin (and overlooking Nuevo Paraiso), showed us banditos gunning someone down in Armadillo... I better not have to pay extra to go to those places.

 

Of course I guess it's an open possibility for them to release FREE map expansions later, but I dunno, that doesn't seem very Rockstar-ish.  In fact few developers do that.  Free content (funded on the back-end by microtransactions) tends to be less work-intensive than a new map area would be.  And Rockstar has professed distaste for the fracturing of the player base that comes from paid DLC of any kind.  Those are just some of the assorted reasons I don't think we'll get a post-release map expansion; it just doesn't make business sense for them, at least not doing it close to anything they've done before, or what even other developers are doing now. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[Ehrmantraut]

11 minutes ago, Fluffy Sock said:

That's the logical reasoning, but it's R* the company we are talking about here. They've shown some stuff in GTAO trailers that was part of the dripfeed after all. 

That's different, because in the end we still get everything they show in the trailer for free, just not in the release, but showing something in the trailer of a new game only to this thing not be in the game, only available later as a (paid) DLC, would pretty much be taken as misleading advertisement, so I don't think they would do that.

[Hookey911]

Has Rockstar stated that the entire map is available from the start(besides opening mission)? No barriers?

[TheWhiteHat]

2 minutes ago, Hookey911 said:

Has Rockstar stated that the entire map is available from the start(besides opening mission)? No barriers?

Spoiler

Previews have stated (what they got from R* themselves) is that the first chapter of the game is limited to Ambarino. Once chapter 1 has been completed the whole map will be available.

 

[Chinese Takeout]

10 hours ago, Pink Pineapple said:

In the picture below, all maps are scaled correctly to one another. The red box is the TV screen size when zoomed out all the way.

 

For GTA V's map, I included all the water shown on the pause screen map. So, scrolling west to east is just under 2 full screens. North to south would be about 3 and a half screens. 

 

 

Spoiler

 

Not that I doubted you, but I just always like to check things out for myself. I booted up each of the games just now, and found your measurements to be spot on!

 

GTA4: When fully zoomed-out the entire map fits within the screen, no scrolling necessary...

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

RDR1: When fully zoomed-out the entire map ALMOST fits within the screen...you can actually see the full PLAYABLE map without having to scroll...

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

GTA5: When fully zoomed-out, the entire PLAYABLE map fits within just less than 3 screens, vertically. So, if you started viewing the map in the direct center, you could not scroll up ONE FULL SCREEN, nor down ONE FULL SCREEN, before reaching the end of the playable map (not counting the water)...
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

So...2 observations:

 

1. If you are able to pause RDR2 and zoom ALL THE WAY OUT (making the map as small as it can be on your screen), and then you can scroll in any direction 1, 2, 3 or MORE screens...THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!

 

I say CRAZY, but what I really mean is, THAT SUCKS. It sucks because of #2...

 

2. #1 has no bearing on how big the ACTUAL world is. Is just reflects how much flexibility there is in how you can view the map...how interactive it is. For example, imagine if you zoomed ALL THE WAY IN in GTA5...and that was actually the FARTHEST OUT you could zoom...and now you wanted to move your view from the airport in LS to Paleto Bay...better have some patience, cause it's gonna take awhile to scroll up there.

 

The point is, there's a huge difference between the in-game "MAP" of the world, and the WORLD itself. And when we talk about the SCALE of the MAP, that's not the same as talking about the SCALE of the WORLD. Just because some previewers zoomed way out, and then it took multiple "screens" to reach the limit, that's no reason to get happy. I don't care HOW big RDR2 is....when I'm playing it, and I want to check something across the map...I want it to be interactive enough that I can zoom WAAAYYY THE f*ck out, so I can see ALL of the map, or at least MOST of it. When I use Google Maps, I don't stay zoomed into my house in North Carolina and then start scrolling page after page after page until I get to California to see what I want to see.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Chinese Takeout

[Nutduster]

I agree, more levels of map zoom should be the norm.  All developers should be looking to Google Maps as a model.  Fit the whole world on one screen, or zoom all the way down to individual streets and buildings.  It's more work for them but makes the map so much more useful for us.

[Sausache]

Since you guys seem adamant of figuring out scale, here's my take on it.

The way I see it, there are 3 potential scales to measure the map at.

 

The first is assuming the landmass featured in RDR1 has been unchanged in scale. Given this, that must mean that not only are the grid-sizes shown on the leaked map indicative of nothing, but the screen sizes have also shrunk down considerably. However, this is unlikely given that almost everyone who has played it has stated it is considerably bigger than GTAV, whereas at this scale it would barely be the same size.

 

The second is going off measurements I made quite a while ago. GTAV map has a grid on the paper copy that is about 6x10, and the grid-sizes on the leaked map(not including NA/NP) were about 13x12. This scale is assuming grid-sizes are consistent across both games. In my opinion, this is the most realistic possibility. At least 2-3x times scale so RDR1 map is as big as GTAV.

 

The third is going off of scale assuming that screen-sizes claimed by someone who played are consistent. This size is unbelievably large. For terms of scale, Tall Trees and Great Plains could encompass almost the entirety of RDR1 at this scale. I centered the screen at Valentine and made it larger until 1 more to the right would hit the edge of the map. Sure enough, a little over twice as far down and you hit Mexico from RDR1. It is pretty much not possible for map to be at this scale though.

[HockeyMike24]

I'm happy Rockstar isn't boasting they have a big map. In this day and age when a company's selling point is their biggest map ever you just know the map is empty with content and looks like an old Scooby Doo back drop. Take any given Ubisoft game for example.