Mapping Red Dead Redemption 2! Landmark Analysis Thread

[ivarblaauw]

@Sausache great job with doing those scale maps. I haven't got the time to answer indepth but I really like the 2/3x size. This is also the one I calculated with the screenshots/trailer comparisons with rdr1. 

 

The largest size would be a dream come true, but I don't think that is realistic. 

 

I guess that the 2/3x including unseen regions is the most logical and would explain the size the previewers saw

Edited October 13, 2018 by ivarblaauw

[Nutduster]

1 hour ago, Sausache said:

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.

 

One thing I find curious about this post is that to me it makes no sense to establish a single scale for both the old and new maps and assume they'll both stick to it.  I think it's reasonably likely the new (leaked) map will have scaled up, and/or changed to some extent.  We pretty much all agree it looks like an early art direction map, and the scale of it may have been close to meaningless at the time it was made - basically little more than a sketch.

 

The old map I think is very unlikely to have scaled up, for reasons already expressed above (short version: it's a lot of work and it would undermine the nostalgia factor inherent in reusing the old map).  If anything has happened along these lines, the most likely scenario - IMO of course - is that the new map has scaled up but the old map has stayed the same, and the exact manner in which they connect is thus not quite the same as the original leak makes it out to be.   Going by grid size for the old map strikes me as really weird because there's no guarantee the grid sizes mean anything consistent between different games, and I am beyond dubious that they would have dragged the RDR map onto a grid, scaled it up 2x, and said "OK artists, there's the new version of the old map - start rebuilding it from the ground up."  In so many tiny ways, this would be a torturous thing to do.  The map was meant to be the size that it was.

 

To me, the chance of seeing a New Austin at 10x or even just 2x its previously established size is nada.  They aren't going to do that; they would be more likely to expand on it, probably to the north.  The leaked map - all the new area? Who knows about that. 

 

So therefore, there are really just two pertinent questions:

1. Has anyone accurately and with complete confidence measured the scale of RDR's map compared to GTA V?  I've seen a few comparisons online and they are WILDLY different.  I don't trust the methodology some people use either.  We should be determining somehow a standard unit of measure - foot, yard, mile, kilometer, whatever - and measuring both maps that way to get an accurate comparison.  And

2. Has the new map scaled up (unanswerable at this juncture); and also, 2.b. have they added anything else?

Edited October 13, 2018 by Nutduster

[lxr]

40 minutes ago, Nutduster said:

1. Has anyone accurately and with complete confidence measured the scale of RDR's map compared to GTA V?  I've seen a few comparisons online and they are WILDLY different.  I don't trust the methodology some people use either.  We should be determining somehow a standard unit of measure - foot, yard, mile, kilometer, whatever - and measuring both maps that way to get an accurate comparison.

 

Yes, we've been there before

 

See: Mapping Los Santos, pages 221, 222 & 223.

 

EDIT: And here is GTA V, for comparison. 9.3 x 13 km, including modeled underwater.

Edited October 13, 2018 by lxr

[Cutter De Blanc]

I mean the simple basics of the argument here which is logically sound is that if you upscale the old map, it will no longer be the old map

 

which kind of defeats the purpose of including the old map

[Original Light]

Can someone explain what upscaling a map is, in technical terms? Is this something that's automated, or would they need to manually do this? It doesn't sound feasible if they have to manually do it, and move every single placed object... not only that, but completely rid the original map of nostalgia and memories... which is the main benefit of including the old map in the first place. 

[lxr]

3 minutes ago, Original Light said:

Can someone explain what upscaling a map is, in technical terms? Is this something that's automated, or would they need to manually do this? It doesn't sound feasible if they have to manually do it, and move every single placed object... not only that, but completely rid the original map of nostalgia and memories... which is the main benefit of including the old map in the first place. 

 

The most simple approach would be to take the old map and scale it up by a factor of, say, 2. It's rather obvious that this wouldn't work, as everyone familiar with the original map would immediately realize that the player has simply been downscaled by a factor of 2. You'd feel like a dwarf.

 

Then there's the idea of a "remaster," where you would recreate the old map from scratch, but at a scale of 2. Some distances and elevations would grow, but the overall scale of the territory would still be plausible, and people who have played RDR 1 would feel familiar with it.

 

I have no idea if this would work though. In many ways, the original map looks and feels like a last-gen map: it's relatively flat, the boundaries and topographical constraints make it seem a bit like a wild west arena, and a lot of travel is more or less east-west movement. Even if you added a lot of new stuff, like more detailed vegetation, more precision in topography, larger settlements, towering mountains in the distance, etc, it would feel a bit like a second-class territory, compared to the areas we've seen in the RDR2 footage. And the more you push it towards RDR2 standards, the less recognizable it becomes.

 

Obviously, R* have thought about this long and hard. I cannot imagine what exactly they've come up with, but I'm quite sure it's something satisfying, and I'm always happy to be surprised.

[BretMaverick777]

The Armadillo picture and the Agave Viejo picture show the same scale RDR1 map in RDR2.  Unless you're positing giant gila monsters -- and giant Mexican bandidos -- it's the same damn scale as RDR1 before.  Of course it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

 

And seriously, who tf cares about comparing RDR2 maps to GTAV?  That has no bearing on this game in any way, shape, or form.   Why do some of you have this increasingly mad need to deny a big ass RDR2 map?  I mean, does it hurt your feelings to get a bigger map than you imagined? Will you lose a bet?  What's the problem here?  It's a big ass map.  Rejoice about it.  I mean, sh*t, people, what up?

[paddymcg]

6 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

The Armadillo picture and the Agave Viejo picture show the same scale RDR1 map in RDR2.  Unless you're positing giant gila monsters -- and giant Mexican bandidos -- it's the same damn scale as RDR1 before.  Of course it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

 

And seriously, who tf cares about comparing RDR2 maps to GTAV?  That has no bearing on this game in any way, shape, or form.   Why do some of you have this increasingly mad need to deny a big ass RDR2 map?  I mean, does it hurt your feelings to get a bigger map than you imagined? Will you lose a bet?  What's the problem here?  It's a big ass map.  Rejoice about it.  I mean, sh*t, people, what up?

I don't think anyone's denying the map will be big. People are just trying to keep their expectations firmly in the 'what we know' category. 

 

Of course I'd love for the map to be big, I'd love to have Mexico return in an extended form, I'd love to have an extended region north of New Austin but until I see some undeniable proof of those things, I will remain cautiously optimistic. 

[lxr]

18 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

The Armadillo picture and the Agave Viejo picture show the same scale RDR1 map in RDR2.  Unless you're positing giant gila monsters -- and giant Mexican bandidos -- it's the same damn scale as RDR1 before.  Of course it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

 

And seriously, who tf cares about comparing RDR2 maps to GTAV?  That has no bearing on this game in any way, shape, or form.   Why do some of you have this increasingly mad need to deny a big ass RDR2 map?  I mean, does it hurt your feelings to get a bigger map than you imagined? Will you lose a bet?  What's the problem here?  It's a big ass map.  Rejoice about it.  I mean, sh*t, people, what up?

 

Well, I guess the original point here was to figure out if it's likely that there are additional, mostly unseen territories in the game, beyond the leaked RDR2 map and some part of the old RDR1 map. Apparently, journalists who played the game were told that RDR2 is Rockstar's biggest map to date, but as far as we can tell, GTAV > RDR2 + RDR1 (even if all of the latter was included).

 

Obviously, no-one is denying that it's a big ass map. It's a bit of a cliché by now, but of course: map depth contributes to map size! Not just: higher variation in elevation adds more surface area, but, more importantly: more detail and interaction adds to perceived size of the world. If it was just about the number of square kilometers, the Flight Simulator I played in the 90s was definitely larger

Edited October 13, 2018 by lxr

[Tonesta]

15 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

The Armadillo picture and the Agave Viejo picture show the same scale RDR1 map in RDR2.  Unless you're positing giant gila monsters -- and giant Mexican bandidos -- it's the same damn scale as RDR1 before.  Of course it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

 

Yeah, I don't think that anyone's imagining that everything in the RDR1 map is exactly upscaled by the same percentage (or if they are they're crazy).

I think the question is - has it been reimagined so that New Austin, for example, is now bigger than it was before? More stuff in between the landmarks we already know and love? Because Rockstar decided it needs to have that to fit in with the new parts of the map.

There's no way that the main street in Armadillo itself is going to be bigger (and we can see that it's not from the footage). 

But Agave Viejo? I've seen all the comparisons, and I don't think it looks exactly the same as the view from any angle that anyone has taken from RDR1 - definitely possible that bits of the map around it have been reimagined and the scale altered.

 

It's not a matter of whether it's a big ass map. It's a matter of how Rockstar have gone about building a big ass map.  And less than two weeks out - we still don't know.

[lxr]

In principle, the question *if* the map has been upscaled (meaning: if West Elizabeth / Tall Trees are larger than in the original game) could be answered today:

 

1. Take a look at the St. Denis postcard. Basically, you're looking down an avenue. Estimate the width of that street, in meters. This is probably the hardest part, but it's okay if you are, say, 10% off.

 

2. Mark the distance across that street on the city map of St. Denis. Now you have a line of x pixels that represent y meters. Now draw another line, across St. Denis, and note the distance of that line. Pick 250 meters, for example.

 

3. Finally, paste that map of St. Denis into the leaked RDR2 screenshot (like on DUPZOR's map). The second line will give you a pretty good scale, and should allow you to measure, with relatively high accuracy, the distance from the easternmost to the westernmost point of the map, in meters.

 

The result won't be exact, but if it significantly exceeds our current expectations, then some upscaling may in fact have taken place.

Edited October 13, 2018 by lxr

[Tonesta]

Let me express myself another way, because reading my post I don't think I've made myself 100% clear.

 

For the Armadillo shot, there's several vids & gifs out there that show the RDR2 trailer fitting perfectly onto a screenshot from RDR1 - it's exactly the same street, in exactly the same proportions - with zero doubt.

 

But for Agave Viejo? There aren't any such comparisons. Because there's nowhere you can go on the RDR1 map that gives you a view that lines up exactly with the Gila Monster shot. It's close and it's clearly the same rock formation, but the landscape around it has been modified. Because of course it has - what would be the point of putting the exact same map into the new game which is being made with a next generation technology? It would just be fan service - but they could do so much more.

 

So for me, it's not a question of whether New Austin has been reimagined to produce a bolder, more spectacular version for RDR2. Of course it has. It's a question of whether the same scale has been retained - or whether they've made it bigger.

[bakerach]

9 minutes ago, lxr said:

Estimate the width of that street, in meters. This is probably the hardest part, but it's okay if you are, say, 10% off.

 

2. Mark the distance across that street on the city map of St. Denis. Now you have a line of x pixels that represent y meters. 

This method is not worth much in terms of finding scale from a map.  Even assuming a 10% margin of error is generous due to the way the maps are rendered.  Street widths are not to scale, the focus is on map legibility and not a strict adherence to things like street width.

 

Basically, map lines are often made much thicker than the streets/paths they're meant to represent so that they read more easily at a glance.  That means that "x pixels equals y feet" can't be extrapolated from a small map section.

[lxr]

9 minutes ago, bakerach said:

This method is not worth much in terms of finding scale from a map.  Even assuming a 10% margin of error is generous due to the way the maps are rendered.  Street widths are not to scale, the focus is on map legibility and not a strict adherence to things like street width.

 

Basically, map lines are often made much thicker than the streets/paths they're meant to represent so that they read more easily at a glance.  That means that "x pixels equals y feet" can't be extrapolated from a small map section.

 

I haven't tried it, but my guess is that it would be good enough. The St. Denis map looks quite precise, even with regards to oddly shaped buildings.

 

Either way, it's currently the only option I can think of when it comes to translating a distance in an image -- that can be established with at least some accuracy -- to the dimensions of the map.

Edited October 13, 2018 by lxr

[cremefraiche]

1 hour ago, BretMaverick777 said:

 it's the same damn scale as RDR1 before.  Of course it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

 

And seriously, who tf cares .. Why do some of you have this increasingly mad need to deny a big ass RDR2 map?  I mean, does it hurt your feelings to get a bigger map than you imagined? Will you lose a bet?  What's the problem here?  It's a big ass map.  Rejoice about it.  I mean, sh*t, people, what up?

Jesus why are so you often so, so abrasive with regard to differing opinions?

 

Nothing is hard fact yet, dude, people could just as easily, and rudely, ask you why you have such a need to 'confirm' a big ass map, as opposed to deny. People are just calling it as they see it, we all are. 

 

A week or two ago you were spouting such baseless sh*t as, "this will be the last western, period." and that "there's enough evidence to prove R* have built the entire continent in to RDR2". Which is an astounding leap, more so than anyone thinking the map may not be as huge as you think. 

 

The reason people aren't ready to 'rejoice' about your 'big ass' continental map is because it's not proven yet, it's not in attempt to rain on your personal parade

[Nutduster]

2 hours ago, paddymcg said:

I don't think anyone's denying the map will be big. People are just trying to keep their expectations firmly in the 'what we know' category. 

 

Of course I'd love for the map to be big, I'd love to have Mexico return in an extended form, I'd love to have an extended region north of New Austin but until I see some undeniable proof of those things, I will remain cautiously optimistic. 

 

That sums it up for me.  I don't "want" the map to be small.  I'd love for it to be as big or bigger than GTA V's map, as long as it doesn't get so huge as to hurt the gameplay or the map's quality and density.  Hypothetically, if they could do a Rockstar-quality version of 15 different western states plus a large chunk of Mexico, I'd be into it.  My only goal is to set my expectations according to the information we've actually got (rather than flights of fancy and wishful thinking).  I do derive pleasure from thinking through the facts of something and predicting something more or less correctly; I DON'T derive pleasure from making some stuff up and then inevitably being incredibly wrong. 

 

The whole fun of a mapping thread, for me, is trying to hone in on what the actual map is going to be like, period.  I'm not here to satisfy my wants for the map.  I'm here to try to guess what it actually is regardless of my wants.

 

I feel like if we were two guys betting on a football game, I'd be the guy trying to guess the actual outcome and BretMaverick would be the guy yelling at me for betting against his favorite team.  Two completely different motives will usually produce two completely different predictions, I suppose.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Nutduster

[Seanonimo1SA]

Someone thinks the possibility that they added more states? New Austin is almost confirmed but, the map seems incomplete, not only for México. The north of new Austin should to be in the game for a razonable map. But they don't put nothing in website they put only the map we know and nothing more... why??? And if north of new Austin is in the game why the train don't pass by that state?

 

sorry for my English 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Seanonimo1SA

[Nutduster]

39 minutes ago, Seanonimo1SA said:

Someone thinks the possibility that they added more states? New Austin is almost confirmed but, the map seems incomplete, not only for México. The north of new Austin should to be in the game for a razonable map. But they don't put nothing in website they put only the map we know and nothing more... why??? And if north of new Austin is in the game why the train don't pass by that state?

 

sorry for my English 

 

Bottom line, we really don't know. There's basically no hard evidence for territory north of New Austin. They haven't showed anything that seems like it would definitely be from a new region. Basically it comes down to how strongly you feel about these contradictory points:

 

1. The hypothetical map made from the leaked map and the old map has a lot of blank space and that seems weird.

 

2. The connection between the old and new maps is basically one small land bridge - kind of weird too. Not very Rockstar-ish.

 

But then...

3. They've showed nothing that isn't definitely or probably from the leaked map or old map - nothing where everyone went, WHERE IS THAT??? 

 

4. The value in surprising players is probably a lot less than the value in selling the game with glimpses of your huge and varied map in the previews. Almost sure Take Two would agree there.

 

Basically - could go either way. My gut says if we see anything north of the old map, it will be an extension of the Grizzlies and not a new state or significant extension of New Austin. And if we see anything south of Flatiron it will be an island and not more Mexico. But that's just a guess. I wouldn't be shocked if either of those areas had some really cool surprise for us.

 

I'll say this too - I don't think there will be more states in the vanilla game. The marketing and previews have set the number of states pretty firmly. If there is a surprise for us, I would expect an extension of a known state instead.

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Nutduster

[Sausache]

4 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

The Armadillo picture and the Agave Viejo picture show the same scale RDR1 map in RDR2.  Unless you're positing giant gila monsters -- and giant Mexican bandidos -- it's the same damn scale as RDR1 before.  Of course it is.  Why wouldn't it be?

We've seen maybe 3 images from New Austin. The first(Gila in the desert) didn't definitively fit anywhere despite everyone here trying to figure out where it was. All we know is that it wasn't on the leaked map. The second was an image of a different Gila by the river that shows off Diez Coronas. It is worth noting that it did not line up perfectly and it is easily possible for the cliff-side we saw to be twice as large as it was in RDR1. The third was a shot that confirmed Armadillo, and even then, we're confined within Armadillo so we don't know if the distance between there and any other landmarks have changed significantly.

 

You're making a strawman. No one is suggesting that there are giant cowboys or that buildings are twice as big as they should. Everyone talking about an upscaled map is suggesting that there is more open space between points of interest(and perhaps some new ones) but stays somewhat geographically consistent(albeit upped in distance) to the old map.

 

4 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

And seriously, who tf cares about comparing RDR2 maps to GTAV?  That has no bearing on this game in any way, shape, or form.   Why do some of you have this increasingly mad need to deny a big ass RDR2 map?  I mean, does it hurt your feelings to get a bigger map than you imagined? Will you lose a bet?  What's the problem here?  It's a big ass map.  Rejoice about it.  I mean, sh*t, people, what up?

The size of the map is important because this is the mapping thread. We're trying to figure out scale. Since every article that talks about the map compares it to GTAV, and for good reason(GTAV was Rockstar's latest and largest game map), we need to compare the two.

 

 

[Nutduster]

1 minute ago, Sausache said:

 

The size of the map is important because this is the mapping thread. We're trying to figure out scale. Since every article that talks about the map compares it to GTAV, and for good reason(GTAV was Rockstar's latest and largest game map), we need to compare the two.

 

 

Yep. It's exactly the point of these projects. All information considered. If you're trying to rule out potentially useful information preemptively, you've probably got an agenda counter to proper mapping.

[Mach1bud]

If you guys would rather, we can just lock this topic down for the next two weeks and forget about it.

 

I mean, unless you can keep things civil. Then I guess we are all good to keep the mapping going.

[primethief147]

2 hours ago, Nutduster said:

3. They've showed nothing that isn't definitely or probably from the leaked map or old map - nothing where everyone went, WHERE IS THAT??? 

I agree with everything here except for this part. There is still one place Rockstar has shown that (as far as I know) still has everyone stumped: the desert from the first gameplay. That desert dosen't seem to be in new austin, so if i had to bet money id say its above new austin and west of the leaked map.

[Pudgehodge]

Somewhat lengthy analysis/ speculation:

 

I'm still thinking a lot lately about the possibilities of additional/ expanded regions outside of what the leaked map shows or RDR's map (expanded areas attached to the BASE MAP.. so not something like North Yankton).

 

I know this has been discussed often here, but I'm specifically thinking about which areas make sense for the map (and story) to be expanded. I made a rough draft of what I can best speculate that the surrounding landscape will be like based off of any images we've seen from RDR2 that show distant areas beyond the leaked map's boundaries, (and also using RDR's map and in-game landscapes as reference).

In the north we know that there are a lot of rocky and snowy mountains in Amborino and parts of West Elizabeth, and it looks like there are more snowy mountains north of those 2 states. I marked the approximate snowy mountain area with the white-ish colour. We also know that the "Redemption Mountains" span most of the length of New Austin, but seem to taper off and become smaller/ smoother mountains in the western side of RDR's map, and the Redemption Mountains at their highest heights don't look to be as large as the Grizzlies. There is a "shelf" or at least a gradual slope that runs up from the borders of New Austin to the Redemption mountains. There is also a western mountain range in RDR, and it generally looks like the south-west regions beyond the map are pretty dry. We can only speculate what is beyond these 2 mountain ranges, and it doesn't really matter considering that we likely won't be able to see beyond those mountain ranges in the game.

 

In the south/ east we know from RDR that there is a southern mountain range that spans the length of Nuevo Paraiso. Those mountains are pretty tall but have smooth curves compared to many of the jagged and vertical snow capped peaks of the northern mountains. In RDR, the east end of the Paraiso mountain range looks to end just south east of Torquemada, or it at least looks to hit a "corner" and change direction. This looks to be the case both in RDR (in-game and on the RDR map) and also in the few screenshots of the south that we have from RDR2. The Paraiso mountains run parallel with the length of Paraiso (and parallel with the San Luis River), but they hit a "corner" mountain that I've dubbed as "red hill". It appears to be in both games. 

I think this is "red hill" (the big mountain just above and to the left of the compass)  

 

I believe the smooth hill in the image of the four gang members is also "red hill", with the Paraiso mountains continuing to it's right (towards the west as this image is looking in a southern direction):

I think we can see this hill in multiple RDR2 images, and it appears that the desert likely continues beyond the hill/ mountain (meaning the desert looks to continue south-east of red hill and the Paraiso mountains. We can also see in this image (and several other images) that the desert quickly transitions into some thick green forests, which seems to be the landscape all along the east side of the Lannahechee River (rolling hills with bushy trees), though there do look to be some dry regions beyond the riverside forests, meaning that the desert might partially continue north-east as well, as seen in the Raonoke Ridge image where there appears to be some dry lands north-east from the big Lannahechee river bend (to the left of Arthur and across the river):

 

All of this considered, I'm trying to think of not just where there could be additional playable area, but where it would make sense to have new playable area.

- where would it make sense for more settlements to be?

- where would it make sense for map travel and which areas actually look like they might not be bordered off by things like cliffs?

- where could they add new accessible areas around RDR's map without having to change the map's boundary areas too much to make the new areas accessible and natural?

- where would new areas make sense in terms of story?

- where could they expand to have new landscapes that wouldn't be mostly the same as it's neighboring landscapes?

- where would they put the borders/ how would they border off the expanded regions?

..and so on...

 

We don't know if Mexico is returning, so I think the most likely area that could be expanded is north of New Austin/ west of West Elizabeth. It would be more mountains, but there is a large "shelf" north of Hennigan's Stead (and most of New Austin) that is between RDR's borders and the Redemption mountains, and this could be an interesting area to explore. People here have mentioned the "bottle necking" of the map if the only way to get to New Austin is the Dixon Crossing (Thieves Landing), so this expansion would of course most likely add more options for travel (as many here have already mentioned). I also think that it's possible the 4 gang members image I linked is actually taken from that upper "shelf". I explored a lot of RDR's map trying to find that spot and it seemed like if I could have gotten up on that shelf, it would have been the same perspective.

 

If Mexico IS returning, I still don't think there would be much reason to expand south of Nuevo Paraiso, considering it's just a long "shelf" that runs the length of the state, with the mountains running the same span behind the shelf. Unless it expanded behind those mountains but that seems a bit unlikely to me. The only spot around Mexico that looks interesting to me for expanding is around the south-western-most part of the river (across the river/ Sea of Coronado). 

 

The only other area that makes sense for expanding on is the forest area on the other side of Flat Iron Lake. Though it doesn't seem like there's much there beyond hills and trees, and it seems like that forest goes from the north-east part of the map (across the river from Van Horn) down along the coast all the way to Thieves Landing. It also wouldn't help any "bottle necking", seeing how the only way to get over there (besides a boat) would be if Mexico was in the game (Mexico is the only part of land connecting to that side as far as we can see), or they could maybe adjust the river/ borders around Thieves Landing to make that area accessible without going into Mexico.

[Cutter De Blanc]

We still aint got any idea where that ruined church is from the first gameplay trailer at 5:19

 

[eastriver]

Did we ever figure out where these trees were from in the leaked map?

 

[Pudgehodge]

2 minutes ago, IG_ said:

Did we ever figure out where these trees were from in the leaked map?

 

I don't think there's a way to definitively determine that location.. but I think it's safe to say either the heart of Cumberland Forest or a revamped Tall Trees.

[MarlboroMan1995]

3 minutes ago, IG_ said:

Did we ever figure out where these trees were from in the leaked map?

 

Some are saying tall trees or maybe Cumberland forest. But those kind of trees do not fit there or anywhere in the leaked map!

[Cutter De Blanc]

4 minutes ago, MarlboroMan1995 said:

Some are saying tall trees or maybe Cumberland forest. But those kind of trees do not fit there or anywhere in the leaked map!

I'm scratching my head to think if we've seen any other shots of Cumberland forest to say if the trees fit there

I will say, the screenshot reminds me of the rainforest in Tennessee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_temperate_rainforest
 

I lived there for a few years when I was a child

Edited October 14, 2018 by Cutter De Blanc

[Bleep%]

9 minutes ago, MarlboroMan1995 said:

Some are saying tall trees or maybe Cumberland forest. But those kind of trees do not fit there or anywhere in the leaked map!

Tall Trees & The Desert pic is from the Old Map. Don't forget the Old map has been revamped. 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Bleep%

[Kirk Lazarus]

My random 2cents on size... horses travel slower than cars, so spaces will feel bigger in Red Dead than GTA. I doubt Rockstar would inflate or redesign material from the previous game. A western isn't a western without a southwestern section. Is there a reason to re-invent their Mexico and the iconic locations already plucked from America instead of using what they already had? Look at this from a production perspective and quality over quantity will win out in the end. Look at how much they've learned to reuse existing space in GTA Online.