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

#91B0vrilPosted 11/14/2012 1:12:36 PM
TRC187 posted...

I also know that when R* was advertising RDR they stated it many times. I apologize for not having those 3 yr old advertisements handy.. I really wish I did, trust me.


You don't need those statements handy because I believe you.

I assume you missed my post above which demonstrated the two map size comparisons of GTAV, mean that RDR must be half the combined size of GTA:SA + GTAIV.

Therefore all such statements are invalid, as you can't just pick and choose nor can you say they are true.

Do you want the Algebraic version?


TRC, I am beginning to think you are a bit of a jester, as some of you remarks are quite silly
Like this:

TRC187 posted...
Your mathematical "proof" is broken. Why? Because its not consistent or accurate with anyone elses opinion with RDR.
#92creep50Posted 11/14/2012 1:14:18 PM



I completely understand opinion has NOTHING to do with map size, I also know that numbers ARE an opinion when the computer isn't riding the horse across the screen.... a person is... hence, a persons involvement, hence... OPINION.


so by that logic newton is a person...so i guess gravity is just his opinion
---
San Andreas > > > > > > > > >Desert Bus > > > > > > > >GTA 4
#93TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 1:22:52 PM
B0vril posted...
TRC187 posted...

I also know that when R* was advertising RDR they stated it many times. I apologize for not having those 3 yr old advertisements handy.. I really wish I did, trust me.


You don't need those statements handy because I believe you.

I assume you missed my post above which demonstrated the two map size comparisons of GTAV, mean that RDR must be half the combined size of GTA:SA + GTAIV.

Therefore all such statements are invalid, as you can't just pick and choose nor can you say they are true.

Do you want the Algebraic version?


TRC, I am beginning to think you are a bit of a jester, as some of you remarks are quite silly
Like this:

TRC187 posted...
Your mathematical "proof" is broken. Why? Because its not consistent or accurate with anyone elses opinion with RDR.


Its silly that a person provides me with a video of a person riding a horse across a map in a set amount of time and then calls it proof? How is my comment any more "silly" than that? It isn't accurate... or consistent, of say.... Someone else, riding their horse, across a map. The logic that is being provided to me.. is silly.

I'm no jester, i promise you that. My self admitted problem is not ending things when I should have, some things really bug me, I won't say what they are because I'll be called a person who "insults" others, but they do.. And I end up taking them too far.. That is my mistake. I'm no jester though.
#94TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 1:26:57 PM
creep50 posted...



I completely understand opinion has NOTHING to do with map size, I also know that numbers ARE an opinion when the computer isn't riding the horse across the screen.... a person is... hence, a persons involvement, hence... OPINION.


so by that logic newton is a person...so i guess gravity is just his opinion


Huh? Please don't.

Newton had a valid mathematical equation.

A person, controlling a horse on a video game, running across a video game map, isn't mathematical proof of anything other than, a digital horse, running across your digital TV screen.
#95Canes01010Posted 11/14/2012 1:35:09 PM
Wait, so you're saying that video I posted proves absolutely nothing? So you still believe it is impossible to cross the entire map in 8 minutes or less?
---
Am I telling the truth.
#96TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 1:41:13 PM
"TRC187 posted...

Your mathematical "proof" is broken. Why? Because its not consistent or accurate with anyone elses opinion with RDR"

Also, the statment above isn't how I intended to type it. Sometimes my hands are slower than my mind, and I don't complete my thought. For a minute there I was typing as fast as I could in an attempt to defend myself against 3 people.

What I meant to say is:

"Your mathematical "proof" is broken, Why? Because its not consistent or accurate with say, someone else riding a horse across the same map, which in-turn translates to just another opinion because you'd have a different time, different speed, different overall result"..

Thats what I meant by that.
#97B0vrilPosted 11/14/2012 1:42:15 PM
I walked East Mexico to West Mexico in as straight a line as I could. It took my 20 minutes.

That's right across the map that you insist is (twice?) bigger than GTA:SA.
#98nativenginePosted 11/14/2012 1:42:33 PM
thedeparted94 posted...
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..


Well it actually means quite a bit, since they use the same measuring tools. But like I said take it for what you will. I'm not going to enter into this argument, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. It's not much bigger then SA but it is bigger.
---
Vegetarian- an old Indian word meaning bad hunter
"Anderson should face two people next time, he's that good"
#99TRC187Posted 11/14/2012 1:45:09 PM
Canes01010 posted...
Wait, so you're saying that video I posted proves absolutely nothing? So you still believe it is impossible to cross the entire map in 8 minutes or less?


I watched the video. I'm not going to dispute what I see wrong with it, but yes, there was one specific catch to the video that would make the trip across the map faster than normal. Probably not by much, but then again, I'd have to see how much of a difference.

Again, exactly why I immediately dismiss this type of logic, its not sound.
#100Canes01010Posted 11/14/2012 1:49:45 PM(edited)
TRC187 posted...
"TRC187 posted...

Your mathematical "proof" is broken. Why? Because its not consistent or accurate with anyone elses opinion with RDR"

Also, the statment above isn't how I intended to type it. Sometimes my hands are slower than my mind, and I don't complete my thought. For a minute there I was typing as fast as I could in an attempt to defend myself against 3 people.

What I meant to say is:

"Your mathematical "proof" is broken, Why? Because its not consistent or accurate with say, someone else riding a horse across the same map, which in-turn translates to just another opinion because you'd have a different time, different speed, different overall result"..

Thats what I meant by that.


Well obviously if you walked the horse across the map it would take longer. The whole point of the video was to prove you wrong when you said it was impossible to cross the map in that time. I don't care if the horse was sprinting, jogging, trotting, walking, whatever. The fact of the matter is that it crossed the map in 8 minutes, proving you wrong and showing how the map isn't as huge as you tried to say it was.

And do you mind telling us what that catch is instead of just saying there is one and not explaining what it was?
---
Am I telling the truth.