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

#81TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 12:17:48 PM
Stop pointing fingers and saying that I'm insulting people.. seriously. You don't know the extent of the argument, including other threads, and the corroboration of everything that has been said.
#82stokes12Posted 11/14/2012 12:21:54 PM
TRC187 posted...
Stop pointing fingers and saying that I'm insulting people.. seriously. You don't know the extent of the argument, including other threads, and the corroboration of everything that has been said.


You want me to stop accusing you of insulting people? Stop doing it, its really that simple, I'm only saying you're doing it because you are.
#83TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 12:22:49 PM
Canes01010 posted...
TRC187 posted...
Should I make up some pixel number claims and call them fact?

Should I make up some travel time claims and call them fact?

Should I say over and over again that R* uses the same measurement calibration from the late '90's and call it fact?

So this is what more proof looks like huh?

Damn, I should have been saying this kinda s*** from the start.

Thing is, none of it is factual unless R* (the games developer) states which one they developed larger than the other. Period.

Please.. I'm done here, look for the new thread in a few days. Call me rude, call me a dick, whatever..


How in the world am I "making up some travel time claims" when i posted a video that clearly shows that the guy crossed the map in 8 minutes from the furthest point West to the furthest point East? That from Southwest to Northeast of the map using a path that is not a straight path and even near the middle has the guy take a big dip causing him to cover the same distance 3 times, but only progressing that distance once from West to East. In a straight line, that time would easily be lower and it would just show the map isn't as big as we all initially thought.


Bro.. C'mon, seriously? Just stop.

Logic to you would be for me to get in a car, in San Andreas, calculate the appropriate mph that you travel with the horse in RDR, then duplicate the same mph in the car and drive across San Andreas while maintaining the same speed equivalent to RDR's horse.. Wow, I'd bet it'd take about 6-8 min too. Actually, less. I got an easier way, let the developer tell us. hmmm?

I'm not going to argue with you.. just wait, and we'll both see.. How bout that?
#84Canes01010Posted 11/14/2012 12:32:56 PM
TRC187 posted...
Canes01010 posted...
TRC187 posted...
Should I make up some pixel number claims and call them fact?

Should I make up some travel time claims and call them fact?

Should I say over and over again that R* uses the same measurement calibration from the late '90's and call it fact?

So this is what more proof looks like huh?

Damn, I should have been saying this kinda s*** from the start.

Thing is, none of it is factual unless R* (the games developer) states which one they developed larger than the other. Period.

Please.. I'm done here, look for the new thread in a few days. Call me rude, call me a dick, whatever..


How in the world am I "making up some travel time claims" when i posted a video that clearly shows that the guy crossed the map in 8 minutes from the furthest point West to the furthest point East? That from Southwest to Northeast of the map using a path that is not a straight path and even near the middle has the guy take a big dip causing him to cover the same distance 3 times, but only progressing that distance once from West to East. In a straight line, that time would easily be lower and it would just show the map isn't as big as we all initially thought.


Bro.. C'mon, seriously? Just stop.

Logic to you would be for me to get in a car, in San Andreas, calculate the appropriate mph that you travel with the horse in RDR, then duplicate the same mph in the car and drive across San Andreas while maintaining the same speed equivalent to RDR's horse.. Wow, I'd bet it'd take about 6-8 min too. Actually, less. I got an easier way, let the developer tell us. hmmm?

I'm not going to argue with you.. just wait, and we'll both see.. How bout that?


If you could calculate the average speed of the horse, then get a car to maintain that speed the entire time, then yea, that would work. That is logic, and that is something that would technically give you a correct calculation.

Now sitting here and saying you bet it would take 6-8 minutes is nothing but a guess. You saying that does not make it a fact. Me saying it earlier didn't make it a fact, the video evidence I gave you is what made it a fact.
---
Am I telling the truth.
#85TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 12:34:56 PM
stokes12 posted...
TRC187 posted...
Stop pointing fingers and saying that I'm insulting people.. seriously. You don't know the extent of the argument, including other threads, and the corroboration of everything that has been said.


You want me to stop accusing you of insulting people? Stop doing it, its really that simple, I'm only saying you're doing it because you are.


I just reread the entire thread.. He is talking to me exactly how I am talking to him. I don't see how I'm the bad guy here. I'm not frustrated or anything, I just don't like the back and forth crap when neither of us have the proof. Its completely pointless and wasting time.

How many times have I said, just wait.. I'll post the thread.. I've probably said that 10 times now, but he keeps going on and on, jabbing at me, trying to disprove me, wanting to argue, now you too..

Why can't you just say, alright cool.. I'll be waiting for the post.. ? Is it too hard to say that?
#86stokes12Posted 11/14/2012 12:37:15 PM
TRC187 posted...
stokes12 posted...
TRC187 posted...
Stop pointing fingers and saying that I'm insulting people.. seriously. You don't know the extent of the argument, including other threads, and the corroboration of everything that has been said.


You want me to stop accusing you of insulting people? Stop doing it, its really that simple, I'm only saying you're doing it because you are.


I just reread the entire thread.. He is talking to me exactly how I am talking to him. I don't see how I'm the bad guy here. I'm not frustrated or anything, I just don't like the back and forth crap when neither of us have the proof. Its completely pointless and wasting time.

How many times have I said, just wait.. I'll post the thread.. I've probably said that 10 times now, but he keeps going on and on, jabbing at me, trying to disprove me, wanting to argue, now you too..

Why can't you just say, alright cool.. I'll be waiting for the post.. ? Is it too hard to say that?


Because he isn't talking to you exactly as you are talking to him, you've accused him of lying, twice, in responses to me and you've stated quite clearly that anyone disagreeing with you, including him, is therefore lacking in intelligence and common sense, these are insults, Canes has not said anything even close to that.
#87nativenginePosted 11/14/2012 12:48:51 PM
Alright, after a long search, I came up with these results. Take them for what you will but I found that,

San Andreas map was 13.9 square miles

Red dead redemptions map was 14.6
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
"Anderson should face two people next time, he's that good"
#88thedeparted94Posted 11/14/2012 12:50:22 PM
nativengine posted...
Alright, after a long search, I came up with these results. Take them for what you will but I found that,

San Andreas map was 13.9 square miles

Red dead redemptions map was 14.6


That means diddly squat..
---
<PSN> britz02
#89TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 12:50:49 PM
Canes01010 posted...
TRC187 posted...
Canes01010 posted...
TRC187 posted...
Should I make up some pixel number claims and call them fact?

Should I make up some travel time claims and call them fact?

Should I say over and over again that R* uses the same measurement calibration from the late '90's and call it fact?

So this is what more proof looks like huh?

Damn, I should have been saying this kinda s*** from the start.

Thing is, none of it is factual unless R* (the games developer) states which one they developed larger than the other. Period.

Please.. I'm done here, look for the new thread in a few days. Call me rude, call me a dick, whatever..


How in the world am I "making up some travel time claims" when i posted a video that clearly shows that the guy crossed the map in 8 minutes from the furthest point West to the furthest point East? That from Southwest to Northeast of the map using a path that is not a straight path and even near the middle has the guy take a big dip causing him to cover the same distance 3 times, but only progressing that distance once from West to East. In a straight line, that time would easily be lower and it would just show the map isn't as big as we all initially thought.


Bro.. C'mon, seriously? Just stop.

Logic to you would be for me to get in a car, in San Andreas, calculate the appropriate mph that you travel with the horse in RDR, then duplicate the same mph in the car and drive across San Andreas while maintaining the same speed equivalent to RDR's horse.. Wow, I'd bet it'd take about 6-8 min too. Actually, less. I got an easier way, let the developer tell us. hmmm?

I'm not going to argue with you.. just wait, and we'll both see.. How bout that?


If you could calculate the average speed of the horse, then get a car to maintain that speed the entire time, then yea, that would work. That is logic, and that is something that would technically give you a correct calculation.

Now sitting here and saying you bet it would take 6-8 minutes is nothing but a guess. You saying that does not make it a fact. Me saying it earlier didn't make it a fact, the video evidence I gave you is what made it a fact.


Oh my god.. This is why you and I have a hard time communicating.. Exactly this.

I was being sarcastic when saying the minutes. Of course it was a guess, why on earth would I make such a ridiculous claim when it would be next to impossible to do it accurately.

You did though, after watching a youtube video of someone else doing it. In my eyes, that is far from accurately representing a measurement. You'd need the exact speed, and maintain that EXACT speed, in a straight, flat, unobstructed path. Its just too difficult to measure either game accurately with the given means. Its literally impossible because you don't have the tools to do so (in-game). This is why I immediately dismiss your logic.

The only way for proof of scale, is to ask the company who designed it.

Only one thing will solve this and be fact.
#90Canes01010Posted 11/14/2012 1:04:16 PM
I did what after watching a video? I claimed you can cross the map in 6-8 minutes. You said that would be impossible. I gave you a video of some guy doing it.

That's all there is to that video. I didn't use that video for anything else other than to show you you were wrong and I was correct. I did the same thing in my game, it took just under 8 minutes. So my 6 minutes claim was off, but being in the range of 6-8 was not. Of course, I have no evidence of me doing it, but the video of someone else is just as good of proof.

As for what you found native. I could believe those numbers, but that's because RDR has a ton of unplayable area. If we're talking strictly playable area, RDR is smaller than San Andreas. If we're talking about the playable area, plus the land beyond the impassable mountains and all other natural barriers, then 14 may be right.
---
Am I telling the truth.