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

#51TRC187Posted 11/13/2012 8:21:07 PM
Canes01010 posted...
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 ratioolso 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.



Again, you obviously don't believe me, so when you hear it straight from the horses mouth, maybe then you'll respect my "common sense" logic. Stay tuned.
#52Canes01010Posted 11/13/2012 9:51:12 PM
Honestly, Rockstar isn't likely to answer it. Others on the GTAForums have been wating on a reply for nearly a week and Rockstar has yet to even say anything in any email replies.

But as I have shown you and explained to you over and over, they use the same scales to design all of their games, so the in game measuring tools indeed are correct and do work in figuring out the game's length.

So when we see that RDR is 4 miles wide, and it is also very much wider than it is tall, we can obviously conclude it is less than 14 square miles, which means it is smaller than San Andreas.

And again, you fail to acknowledge the video proving that you can cross the entire map from East to West in an "impossible" time. I just passed into legend in Red Dead, so I have one of the slower horses in the game, and not but 2 hours ago did I go from Blackwater to the furthest road West in New Austin in just at 8 minutes. And that was taking the roads which are far from being straight across the land. So I am sure if I had one of the faster horses in the game, my 6 minutes post from earlier would be correct and not impossible like you claim.

I won't argue that RDR feels bigger at times, but having played only Red Dead, GTA SA, and GTA IV exclusively this week, it's become clear from pure testing and just playing the game that IV is significantly smaller in size while RDR and SA are near identical, but after measuring over and over, SA is definitely larger by a little over a square mile.
---
Am I telling the truth.
#53wwervinPosted 11/13/2012 9:58:10 PM
Are you seriously still arguing this? Just out of curiosity, what do you hope to attain from it? You keep insisting that SA is bigger (when it's clearly not), but so what if it is or isn't? Do you get some sort of award for being the biggest tool around here? I don't get it. Let it go already. We already know the map will be freakin huge so let's leave it at that.
#54Canes01010Posted 11/13/2012 10:20:24 PM(edited)
wwervin posted...
Are you seriously still arguing this? Just out of curiosity, what do you hope to attain from it? You keep insisting that SA is bigger (when it's clearly not), but so what if it is or isn't? Do you get some sort of award for being the biggest tool around here? I don't get it. Let it go already. We already know the map will be freakin huge so let's leave it at that.


There isn't much info out about this game. We know the map size. It's been said to be 3x RDR and 5x if you include the water/topography. So while I gain nothing really out of this argument, it does in a way help us figure out the map size.

You guys insisting that RDR is clearly bigger are thus implying GTA V will be at least 40 square miles of land. I'm saying it's 30 at least with my argument. That's a pretty sizable difference is it not? Of course, I doubt the game is 300% exactly bigger and Rockstar is just giving us an idea, but this is still a nice little debate, in my opinion of course.

I find this better than most the topics around here talking about the same 3 things over and over and over. This is something a little bit different.

And I can agree, this game is going to be huge. Either way, if I'm correct, or you are all, this map will be larger than my hometown which is only 29 square miles. That's pretty insane to think about.

But the reason I keep arguing over and over is because you all keep claiming RDR is "clearly" the larger game and I have "obviously never play Red Dead Redemption". But you never explain why other than the fact you say it is and you say Rockstar themselves said it was bigger, but you fail to bring up any proof. I remember R* saying it's their largest game, but not largest map. Big difference there, but not once do I remember them saying the map was ever bigger than San Andreas. The entire map including unplayable area is probably bigger than San Andreas, but playable area only is definitely smaller and I've proven it over and over and over and you all fail to even try to see that.

If you all could just actually bring in proof and sources into the argument, then I could easily change my views to match your alls. But when I've sat here and measure the map's dimensions in game, others have done the same, others have used Rockstar's standard scale, and we've all come up with the same numbers consistently, I'm going to believe the actual numbers.

You guys will all agree with me that San Andreas is 13.6 square miles, some say 13.9. But you won't agree RDR is less than that when the same exact methods are being used to find it's area. That just seems silly to me. Why trust the methods for one map, but turn on it for the other map? It's because you're all wanting to believe RDR is so much larger when it really isn't and there are numerous ways to prove it.
---
Am I telling the truth.
#55deimos91Posted 11/13/2012 10:59:12 PM
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 he is right technically in mass your right but most of RDR was soo empty
---
Intel core 2 duo E4400 2 GHZ|Radeon 4650 512MB|2 GB DDR2 ram/steam:fartman91/3DSFC:3265-5740-7951
#56MaxiPower90Posted 11/14/2012 6:08:29 AM
San Adreas had the bigger map... I know this as fact simply because i'm not an idiot
---
E3 2012 Sucked :(
#57B0vrilPosted 11/14/2012 6:29:03 AM
Let's forget about calculated map sizes and instead look at what has been said.

If you're going to take the statement made in RDR's previews, that it is twice GTA:SA, as golden, then it's only fair to take these statements about GTA V as golden aswell:


- GTAV including interiors will be slightly larger than the combined size of RDR, GTA:SA & GTAIV.

- GTAV is three times RDR, or five times RDR including water.


Taking these two statements & using some algebra, one can show that GTA:SA & GTAIV must be twice RDR.

This of course completely contradicts the original statement about RDR's sizes.

As such we can't rely on any of these statements as being accurate at all.
#58trenkenPosted 11/14/2012 6:33:40 AM
I love when these companies make claims like this and its never what people actually think. I guarantee you a lot of that space will be the Alamo Sea and empty countryside.

People look at some pictures of a bustling city with all kinds of people and buildings, and think thats what will fill this entire space, that the entire map will be extremely dense with tons of stuff going on, but that's pretty much never the case.

They pulled this crap with San Andreas. They talked about how big it was, then I got the game and realized it half of it could have been stripped out and the game would have still been fun, even more fun without so much empty useless space. They use these claims to get people fired up and preordering.

Thats what I liked about Arkham City. They could have tried to create an entire city, but thats pointless. Instead they took a section of the city and make it very rich and dense which was great. No wasted space.
---
3DS | 1504-5688-7256
PS3/Vita | CygnusZero
#59trenkenPosted 11/14/2012 6:35:38 AM
Im sure everyone experienced that with SA. How much space in that game wasnt needed? You would get to an area and there was just nothing to do there. It was just built for the hell of it just so they could use the size of the map as a selling point.

There is literally no way this 5x the size of Red Dead and be really rich and dense. It took about 75 people 3 years to build the GTA4 map. When did they start working on this new ma, 6 years ago? Come on.
---
3DS | 1504-5688-7256
PS3/Vita | CygnusZero
#60TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 6:55:59 AM
All I need to say is...

There are a total of 19 of you who insist that San Andreas is larger than RDR... And approximately 55+ people who know that RDR is larger than San Andreas.. Again, when there are 20 people telling you that you're wrong, and you are the only person thinking you're right... Chances are, you are probably wrong.

To the other guys post saying that R* has used the same method of measurement since the '90's or whatever.. Whoa, do you work in the R* mapping development department? That sure sounds like some insider information you got there, and you're doubting that I'll receive a response from R* regarding my question? I always receive a response from R*, it usually takes anywhere from a week to 2 weeks, but I always receive a response.

And I can already predict what is going to happen when I receive the response that I know I will receive.. Neither of you will accept it. I honestly think that you both know this already (meaning, you know what the answer from R* is going to be), but insist on debating the topic because you can't swallow your pride. Deep down you know that R* will respond with RDR having the larger map, and you are already splitting hairs trying to formulate a illogical rebuttal. I know this will not end with R*'s statement, which simply means you insist on wallowing in your self induced pool of ignorance.

That is something a disproved debate can't fix, so theres no need to debate it any further.

I will still post the response, but its pointless to continue this discussion after that.