red dead redemption's map wasn't larger than san andreas'...was it??

#41capper64Posted 11/13/2012 8:12:40 AM
Can we just agree GTA V will be huge and stop caring about this?
#42Smakface13Posted 11/13/2012 9:29:58 AM
capper64 posted...
Can we just agree GTA V will be huge and stop caring about this?


This.
---
I am looking at you through the eyes of a dead man
#43Vincet_ChasePosted 11/13/2012 9:32:39 AM
thedeparted94 posted...
Vincet_Chase posted...
B0vril posted...
Delkura posted...
Yes, RDR's map is bigger. Roughly 2.5 times the size of San Andreas, I believe.


nope. it's actually smaller. in terms of actual land mass probably not by much.


nope, RDR is actually significantly bigger than San Andreas. Thats fact. Deal with it.


No its not fact, & i don't see how you can accurately measure which one is bigger..

I'd say san andreas..


wrong, it is fact. RDR is bigger than San Andreas.
#44Canes01010Posted 11/13/2012 10:01:47 AM
TRC187 posted...
Canes01010 posted...
It's already been proven using the in game measuring stats and Rockstar`s scale that SA is 13.6 sqare miles, RDR is nearly 12 and IV is 6. Heck, you can go East to West in 6 minutes. There is no way RDR is 28 sqare miles like you all claim when its not even 5 miles wide. And you can easily measure that yourself in game.


East, to west with RDR in 6 minutes huh? Ya.

Again, maybe if you've actually played RDR you'd understand how incredibly impossible that is. Why on earth would R* be comparing the sheer size of their brand new mega-blockbuster game to RDR, over and over again if SA was the bigger game? They use RDR as their basis of comparison simply because it is THEIR LARGEST GAME TO DATE... R* says, "GTA V is the size of 3.5x RDR and 5X RDR including the ocean".. Why wouldn't they be comparing it to San Andreas if RDR was smaller? Ding ding..

Jesus Christ, you guys have got to be missing something upstairs if you can't connect the dots.. I don't know what else to tell you man. It literally drives me nuts to know there are people in our society that lack this much common sense.


Comparing GTA V to RDR means absolutely nothing at all. RDR is their latest game, why would they not compare it to that. And I do play RDR, I still do weekly. It is one of my favorite games. I also still play San Andreas weekly.

Can we both agree that Red Dead Redemption's map is wider than it is tall? Of course we can, that is an obvious fact just by looking at the map and playing the game. So, we know that is fact, so how in the world is Red Dead Redemption's map twice the size of San Andreas(which would make it 27-28 square miles) when the map is not even 5 miles wide?

Explain that to me man. If the longest side of the map isn't even 5 miles, then how on Earth can it possibly be 28 square miles? Go play the game yourself, go from East to West or vice-versa, the in game stats will tell you you traveled 4.5 miles at most. So even if the map was a perfect square, which it clearly is not, then, the biggest it could possible be is around 20 square miles if we square 4.5. However, we can easily also measure the map from North to South, and even using the in game roads, which are not straight up and down, you won't travel 4.5 miles, so the map can't possibly be 20 square miles.

Oh, and you will enjoy watching this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqD8cwZSJ-4

It takes the guy 8 minutes, not 6 to go from West to East, but that clearly shows the map is not as huge as you claim it to be. It's a big map, almost as big as San Andreas, but it is not bigger than San Andreas and using actual math easily proves that.
---
Am I telling the truth.
#45B0vrilPosted 11/13/2012 11:03:03 AM
TRC187 posted...
Don't even start with B0vril, he has blinders on and will never understand that he's wrong. He's been proven wrong about 50 times, but still insists that he knows more than R* themselves. Genius.


Where have I been proved wrong? All you've done is told me how I "clearly haven't played the game", & how wrong I am and how much of an idiot I am.

Rockstar may very well have said RDR is twice as big SA, but that out right contradicts the fact that I could run(not on horseback) from East Mexico to West Mexico in 20 minutes. The game measured that as 3.6 miles.
#46TRC187Posted 11/13/2012 12:12:29 PM
I'm exhausted.. I'm trying to convince a few people of something, something of which everyone else knows as fact. Everyone else that possesses a little common sense knows which one is larger, except a few of you..

One thing I've learned in my 30 some odd yrs of life, is that when you have 20 people telling you that you're wrong (but you are SURE that you're right), chances are, you're probably wrong. Its hard to admit sometimes, I know this, but the longer you keep at it that you're right... The more ridiculous you look because you are infact wrong. Just a friendly thought.

When I get the response from R*, I'll share it.

Also, the in-game distance and measuring mechanics do not reflect accurate game scale, or actual constructed map space in sq miles, you cannot use the "distance traveled" meter in the stat menu to prove your point to me.. Whos to say that both SA and RDR have the same exact calibrated distance measure? Its an in-game tool, relative to the given game to keep track of random stats, not to be used for actual measurement! Jesus.

Again, the map for RDR is simply larger than SA. Hence the reason WHY R* uses it as a basis for their comparison and not San Andreas.. Its not because its "newer", its because its their biggest open world game to date. Why wouldn't R* use San Andreas if it was their largest open world game? Its a GTA game, RDR is obviously a completely different game. It's well known that San Andreas is larger than IV, why not use it for a comparison then? You'd think, if San Andreas was infact the largest game to date, whether or not its "new" wouldn't make a difference at all because it would have been recognized for all these years as, "the largest open world R* game".. Well, it isn't used for their comparison because it isn't their largest game.

RDR is a completely different game, the sole reason it is referenced is due to its size, and the well known fact that it is their largest open world game.. (well known for most anyways)

You still think otherwise though, nothing I say will change your mind. Lets hope you believe the developers of the game. When I get my response I'll create a new thread, whether or not I'm right or wrong, I'll copy and paste the email. Fair enough?
#47SamuariLegend24Posted 11/13/2012 1:01:29 PM
TRC187 posted...
I'm exhausted.. I'm trying to convince a few people of something, something of which everyone else knows as fact. Everyone else that possesses a little common sense knows which one is larger, except a few of you..

One thing I've learned in my 30 some odd yrs of life, is that when you have 20 people telling you that you're wrong (but you are SURE that you're right), chances are, you're probably wrong. Its hard to admit sometimes, I know this, but the longer you keep at it that you're right... The more ridiculous you look because you are infact wrong. Just a friendly thought.

When I get the response from R*, I'll share it.

Also, the in-game distance and measuring mechanics do not reflect accurate game scale, or actual constructed map space in sq miles, you cannot use the "distance traveled" meter in the stat menu to prove your point to me.. Whos to say that both SA and RDR have the same exact calibrated distance measure? Its an in-game tool, relative to the given game to keep track of random stats, not to be used for actual measurement! Jesus.

Again, the map for RDR is simply larger than SA. Hence the reason WHY R* uses it as a basis for their comparison and not San Andreas.. Its not because its "newer", its because its their biggest open world game to date. Why wouldn't R* use San Andreas if it was their largest open world game? Its a GTA game, RDR is obviously a completely different game. It's well known that San Andreas is larger than IV, why not use it for a comparison then? You'd think, if San Andreas was infact the largest game to date, whether or not its "new" wouldn't make a difference at all because it would have been recognized for all these years as, "the largest open world R* game".. Well, it isn't used for their comparison because it isn't their largest game.

RDR is a completely different game, the sole reason it is referenced is due to its size, and the well known fact that it is their largest open world game.. (well known for most anyways)

You still think otherwise though, nothing I say will change your mind. Lets hope you believe the developers of the game. When I get my response I'll create a new thread, whether or not I'm right or wrong, I'll copy and paste the email. Fair enough?


+1 good sir. Don't let these mouth breathers bring you down. They are obviously too stupid to realize taht two different games made in two different time periods even, would have two different measurement methods lol. The fact the used the in game emasurement made me lol hard.

Either way, RDR is larger than SA. Fanboys will be fanboys. Take off your Rose Tinted goggles, this guy has proven you wrong in three seperate ways, one with discrediting the topic that compared the poster maps given in the games box (LOL, they are approx the same size, of course the larger map is downsized.... idiots). And like he said, why in the world would RDR even be brought up about a GTA game unless it was relevant(you know.... like the map size.....). If SA was indeed alrger the comparisons would be to SA not RDR's map.

Jesus when did GameFAQs get invaded by single celled organisms?
---
i don't need to stick my head up a cows ass to know that it stinks in there - blutoblutarskyX
#48NutralguyPosted 11/13/2012 1:15:15 PM
TRC187, I agree with you all the way. I was on the R* site months before RDR was released hearing them clearly stating it was the biggest open world game to date. The people who disagree probably still think there will be more than one city.
#49B0vrilPosted 11/13/2012 1:44:54 PM
TRC187 posted...
Also, the in-game distance and measuring mechanics do not reflect accurate game scale, or actual constructed map space in sq miles, you cannot use the "distance traveled" meter in the stat menu to prove your point to me.. Whos to say that both SA and RDR have the same exact calibrated distance measure? Its an in-game tool, relative to the given game to keep track of random stats, not to be used for actual measurement! Jesus.


The scale of the game worlds could differ, but as everything in the world is built relatively then it would be extremely bizarre for them to make a huge 27 sq mile area & then map it to a greatly inaccurate representation of a mile.

That's not even dealing with the time in which a player can cover a distance, which if anything one could see as the games measurement being exaggerated, but I imagine that's more the speed of the player character...

But I have emailed Rockstar about this and will be interested to see their reply(if any).


@SamuariLegend24:

Don't just call me an idiot; tell me why I am wrong!

I am not a "fanboy", nor a nostalgic reject. I am not scared of being wrong, but I certainly won't jump to your side because you think of me as an idiot.

Also, there is further evidence that RDR is smaller than SA based upon what has been said about GTAV's size. I will publish this in a new paper(topic).
#50Canes01010Posted 11/13/2012 2:14:42 PM
You do realize Rockstar used the same measuring tools to build GTA III, GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Max Payne 3, and more than likely GTA V.

The engine they used changed in transition from San Andreas to GTA IV, but their artists still make all objects based off the same scale that is used company wide.

Rockstar always, ALWAYS, uses the 1 pixel = 1 meter in their games. All of their games with map use this standard scale. San Andreas, RDR, GTA IV, etc. Every game uses this. If you find the maps, in their native resolution directly from Rockstar, the pixel/meter measurements match up to the in game measurements.

San Andreas' map in it's native resolution via Rockstar is 6000x6000. Convert that over into the imperial system and you somehow get 13.6 square miles. If you go in game and run in a straight line for a mile, mark where you started/finished. Then go to the map, mark off the correct number of pixels from your starting point and you will for some odd reason have the same exact ending point.

Hmm, I wonder why that works in GTA SA, GTA IV, and RDR? I highly doubt it has anything to do with Rockstar making all 3 games with the same scaling and artistic tools. That's way too rational.

I also like how you failed to acknowledge the video I posted showing you that you can indeed go from West to East and vice-versa in RDR in a very brief amount of time which is 6-8 minutes. Why is it that you can do that? Is it maybe because Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption is not even but around 4 miles wide? A measurement that can be found true by measuring it in game, using Rockstar's golden measuring method.

You keep arguing over and over with no facts or numbers to back this up. All you keep saying is anyone who has common sense can tell the worlds ov RDR and SA are not even comparable. But that means nothing. I'll admit, I bought Red Dead on release day, just like I did with San Andreas. When I first played SA, I was in awe as I progressed through the game and saw how huge the world was. When I got Red Dead on release day, I was again in awe of how massive the map was, but also at how detailed it was and everything was so realistic it was a form of art.

I honestly believed RDR was easily bigger than San Andreas. But then I started playing San Andreas again, and I still play both to this very day. Who knows what play through I am on in San Andreas. Who knows how many hours of pure free roam I've played in RDR. Both are numbers I don't want to know.

So I do play both games, I enjoyed Red Dead more than San Andreas. It's easily my favorite game possibly ever, but I will not stand here and tell you it has a world greater than San Andreas in size when you can easily prove that wrong with multiple methods. Methods that don't even overlap, yet produce the same exact results.

I don't know what else to tell you, but I am having fun debating with you all on this. I just wish you all would stop claiming we're common sense lacking idiots because we're on the side we're on. We aren't calling you all any names or saying you lack any knowledge, we're just trying to convince you why we believe we are right.
---
Am I telling the truth.