Banana Pudding
-
Content Count
211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Banana Pudding
-
-
Same mountains?
-
2
-
-
99.9 (repeating) percent chance it is only Los Santos.
Imagine San Andreas with a large Los Santos and no San Fierro or Las Venturas. One downtown area in the whole game with miles and miles of sprawl around it. Nowhere to fly to except some little town with a dirt airstrip. Most ambitious game?
What exactly is this in the marked area?
It kind of looks like two big tires with some kind of backrest or something. I don't know what the hell I'm looking at. Someone help me.
-
Also gotta remember..... This is GTA. You can carry a gun on the street and no one cares.
yep
-
I don't think there will be seasons.
-
It would be hilarious if they brung back Hostile neighborhoods like in the GTA3 era, i missed people actually picking a fight with you in GTAIV.... Like in VC when you drove into Little Haiti to get to Kauffman Cabs and youd be welcomed with a hail of gunfire, or wasting time watching the Cubans and the Haitians go at it between the borders of both turfs, made it fun to sneak around areas.
Yep, they definitely need dangerous areas. There weren't any in IV. I don't want it as bad as Saint Mark's in GTA III though.
-
1
-
-
Are these the same buildings? I'm not entirely sure about a couple of them.
-
Yeah it is true that San Diego is similar to Los Angeles. But it would be a lot more realistic and logical than any other city.
Don't forget that it's a game and enjoyment is more important than realism and logic.
-
1
-
-
What possible reason would there be to include Chicago? Seriously, by reimagined I'm almost 100% sure they don't mean to add a large city on the east coast which could have it's own game.
I don't know why I even come to this place. Is this a "special" forum?
-
Well, isnt san diego just like los angelos? Id like more variation then that...
That's why I think San Diego would be a terrible choice for another city. If the first city was something like Chicago, then San Diego would be okay.
-
1
-
-
This is to get an idea of the north/south distance of the city.
The helicopter picture shows a good portion of Los Santos from north to south. The Bank Tower is 1,018 feet tall and the Vincent Thomas Bridge is 365 feet tall. Assuming they're scaled correctly, this is what the Bank Tower would look like next to the V.T. Bridge -
This next picture shows the size difference of the Empire State Building in IV from different distances away -
This is a side by side comparison -
-
I decided to take another picture like this ( http://i.imgur.com/RO6cw.jpg ) in third person. Here -
That's from about the same distance as the first picture and the buildings still appear to be around the same height.
As you can see, the GTA V trailer is in a wider format. That just extends the sides. It doesn't skew anything. See here - http://www.moviesbys.../widescreen.htm
If you resize them to make them the same height, you can just crop the sides. The vertical view is the same -
Doing the same thing with the GTA pics gives you this -
As shown, the third person view didn't add much distance to the first person estimate. Some of that is because I originally erred on the side of caution. The Chrysler Building appears smaller than the Bank Tower in the first picture.
Taking all of that into account, TreeFitty's map would be this size -
-
He's not trying to prove just that there is more than 1 city, he's trying to prove that San Fierro and Las Venturas will return - which they won't.
Chicken or the egg?
I originally thought it was just Los Santos with maybe some small towns. It was only after trying to figure out the size of the map and seeing that it could be small that I realized other cities are possible.
If there aren't other cities, then there would likely have to be large areas of sparsely populated suburban sprawl. I don't think that would make a good game environment.
If there are other cities, which ones are likely? Would they dedicate time and resources creating a city like San Diego? San Diego is similar to LA, so that would mean the game has two cities that for the most part look and feel the same. Also, most people don't know anything about San Diego. If you ask the majority of GTA fans what San Diego is famous for, the replies would mostly be, "Uhhh...hmmm... the Chargers?" Would Rockstar introduce a city like that in their most ambitious game?
-
So basically you're trying to prove that there has to be more cities in the game because you think Los Santos is less than 2 thirds of L.C. and that wouldn't be enough urban area?
I think there should be at least the same amount of city area as IV and it doesn't seem likely that there would only be a few skyscrapers in the whole game. Also, if that's the only downtown area, would they have shown it all in one image that early?
I wish I knew which view that oil well picture was in. It's probably in first person since that would make the city appear larger and that would make the most sense.
I'm just having some fun with it all and seeing how well I can predict how the map will be set up. It'll be interesting to compare when the game is finally released. If it's really inaccurate, we can all have a laugh. I'm going to avoid all message boards though. I don't want anything spoiled.
-
Some of you people sure do get upset when someone suggests Los Santos is small. I figure if I bothered you so much, you'd want to shut me up or make me look like a fool and the best way to do that would be to show that my estimates are baseless and inaccurate. No one has because they can't. Every argument against me is based on unlikely assumptions. The person who made some claims was unable to back them up and has shown that he's probably a liar.
All of my estimates are objective. I'm not skewing anything to make the map look small. Some more stuff...
Back to this pic - http://i.imgur.com/wfb8w.jpg
The ship picture is in first person. The Statue of Happiness is in third person camera mode. Even taking into account the size differences of background objects in different perspectives, the size differences increase/decrease at a greater rate than distance traveled. For instance, a short distance on the map has a large effect on the sizes of objects. If two similarly sized objects appear to be the same size in different pictures, then they're probably about the same distance away. Perspective can alter that and we'll get to that later.
In the above image, the distance from the ship to the Empire State Building appears to be about the same as the distance from the oil well to the Bank Tower. It's unknown if the oil well picture is in first or third person mode. It's probably in first person since that would make the city appear larger.
Anyway, here's a large size of the ship picture from the trailer - http://i.imgur.com/sRDSl.jpg
Here are a couple of pictures I took from the same spot. One is in first person like the trailer and the other is in third person...
Assuming the oil well picture is in third person, you'd have to add that extra distance above to the known distance from the ship to the Empire State Building to get a decent estimate of the distance in the oil well pic.
Applying that to TreeFitty's map, you get the maximum estimated size here:
If the oil well picture is in first person, TreeFitty's map would be significantly smaller.
-
1
-
-
Not name-calling, just stating the obvious. Of course, as I did so, I did not think about what a long and boring back-and-forth this would turn into
You'd have to be pretty stupid not to realize that.
I know your internet girlfriend doesn't like me and you're trying to impress her. It's totally obvious. We can all see that.
Someone makes a solid counterpoint, and your response is essentially "Hm, maybe, but here's a vaguely-related post I made earlier that doesn't really pertain to your point.The only counterpoints were about the scale and focal length/perspective. They are based on assumptions that are unlikely. Rockstar scaled the buildings correctly in IV and they probably did the same for V. Most would agree with that.
The focal length/perspective counterpoint assumes Rockstar used images that made the city look smaller. As I've said, that's highly unlikely.
Plus, I posted visual evidence that shows that even if they did make things look smaller, it wouldn't make a significant difference in estimating the map size. Maybe you missed it the first 2 times I posted it, so here it is again-
To claim that is a "vaguely-related post I made earlier that doesn't really pertain to your point" is incredibly stupid.
I don't give a shit about the map, my issue is you being a smug asshole.Translation: "You were mean to my internet girlfriend and I'm all upset about it and now I'm going to call you some names."
Oh, and the GTA IV trailer looked like it did because it was based on a documentary that had the same angles and filming style, not to make the city look bigger.Fact- taking pictures from low angles makes objects appear larger. Fact - there are shots of the city from the air in that documentary that show the true size of the city. Rockstar didn't use those.
The other three trailers didn't look like that.The other trailers focus more on the characters and story than the city.
Also, do you remember how you "fixed" some of my posts and basically made some claims in the process? Well, I'm still waiting for your answers. I'm curious if you can back them up. I put them in a nice, easy to read image for you - http://i.imgur.com/KyRlc.jpg
The same way opinions based on one trailer and a few screenshots are still opinions. They should not be presented as facts...followed by derision for anyone that might not agree. TreeFitty's map does an amazing job of linking R*'s material to date into a visual, but you'll notice he didn't paint himself into a corner setting limits on what the game will really be like.
You do realize that a lot of his map is based on opinions, right?
-
You resort to name-calling, and somehow I'm the twat. Nice.
- Potentially inaccurate visual evidence based on my own opinion and a slightly above-average understanding of perspective suggests that the city area of Los Santos is considerably smaller than Liberty City.
I know about perspective and factored that in. Also, is Rockstar going to choose images and views that make the city appear smaller?
- Zero evidence that it's big, in my opinion.Show some evidence that it's big. I challenge you.
- Different methods of estimating size - all of which I made up, ignoring others' thoughts on the matter - come to the same conclusion.Yeah, I totally invented using scale and images to estimate distance. Also, I didn't ignore anything.
- Over-estimating size of Los Santos using my potentially inaccurate methods still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.Correct. Potentially, not probably. The odds are in my favor.
- Proven (in my mind) that effects of zoom and focal length don't translate into significant distances on map; therefore, have minimal effect on estimates of total map size.Did you see this?
- 'Proven' that Rockstar used angles to make things appear larger in GTA IV trailer.You can remove the quotes. It's fact. Pictures taken from low angles make objects appear larger.
- Proven that Rockstar didn't use any views in GTA IV trailer that can't be achieved on consoles, except for the ones they did.Which ones? Show them.
- Proven that I am a twat who can't accept the possibility that I may be mistaken, but am perfectly capable of claiming everyone else is.I've already admitted I could be wrong. Look a few posts up. Again, who's being the twat here?
used camera techniques to intentionally make the city appear smaller. (highly unlikely, but only because I misunderstood what Dup said)I understood everything he said. It has minimal effect on the estimates of total map size.
-
Summary:
- Visual evidence suggests that the city area of Los Santos is considerably smaller than Liberty City.
- Zero evidence that it's big.
- Different methods of estimating size come to the same conclusion.
- Over-estimating size of Los Santos still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.
- Proven that effects of zoom and focal length don't translate into significant distances on map; therefore, have minimal effect on estimates of total map size.
- Proven that Rockstar used angles to make things appear larger in GTA IV trailer.
- Proven that Rockstar didn't use any views in GTA IV trailer that can't be achieved on consoles.
Arguments against are all based on assumptions that...
- Buildings aren't scaled properly even though they're scaled properly in IV. (unlikely)
- Rockstar used camera techniques to intentionally make the city appear smaller. (highly unlikely)
-
Does anyone think the airport could be behind the lower part of the helicopter? They haven't shown anything in that area. I played IV and from a similar height and distance, you can't tell the airport is there except for the tower.
-
Hey pud, you make it sound like the first person camera is the same lens type for gta iv and the v trailer. They probably have a slider to control camera lenses in game. Which makes things difficault to judge. You can't assume the first person camera is for example, always a 15mm lens, that'd just be guessing. Perspective does play a part in judging a distance too. Focal length & feild of view can drastically alter the size of a distant object from image to image.
I know you coule calculate the height of an object based on real world object scales, but that's still not accurate. I'm not dismissing your efforts, as we can all see just buy watching the trailer and looking at pics, that it seems like a fairly small city.
Even if Rockstar used techniques in the trailer to get views that you can't get on consoles (they didn't in the IV trailer), I've already shown how significant size differences of background objects don't translate into large distances on the map. For instance, a 100% difference in size doesn't mean it's 100% farther away. You can see it in the pics I already posted:
That presents more of a problem in placing individual points inside the map than it does for estimating the maximum size of the map.
Even when I over-estimate everything when trying to figure out the size of Los Santos, it still doesn't cover more area than Alderney and Algonquin combined.
If anyone can show any views that would suggest it's bigger, let's see it. I can't find anything.
-
Man, that's some smart shit figuring that out, if it's right of course. Well done.
I could be wrong, but the odds are in my favor.
There's a good bit of evidence that suggests Los Santos is small. There is no evidence that it's big.
-
I need to clarify things a little about focal length and zoom. There is a difference between first and third person views in the game, but it's not nearly as much as the water bottle picture above.. First person makes objects appear farther away than third person. It doesn't make a significant difference when estimating the size of the map.
In the picture below, one is in first person and the other is in third. The pay phone on the left is in the same spot for both. The building in the distance appears smaller and farther away in first person. See...
That distance above is pretty insignificant.
In my Chrysler building comparison ( http://i.imgur.com/RO6cw.jpg ) I used first person since the GTA V pic is also in first person. However, you don't have to travel that much farther away to make the buildings look the same distance away in third person.
I took all these factors into account when estimating the map size. If you assume the oil well in the trailer is farther away from the downtown buildings than any other point (which I think is true), and you use third person view to estimate the distance (even though the trailer is in first person which makes things look farther away), and you make that distance the radius of a circle, you get this:
That's an over-estimated area for the city of Los Santos.
-
It makes all the difference when you're trying to place where the camera is on the map.
TreeFitty is spot on. Angle of view is a huge factor and cannot be ignored. A trivial example is this image that appears in a Wikipedia article:
The items are the same size, but depending on factors like focal length and zoom level, each image looks totally different.
Now, all of this analysis is fascinating, but let's not pretend we know anything definitive about the scale of the map.
First of all, that still wouldn't affect relative scale of items in the background. Secondly, Rockstar didn't use any camera tricks like that in the trailers for IV. Every view in the trailers can be achieved on consoles.
Most importantly, are they going to make the game look bigger or smaller in the trailer and screenshots? It's highly likely that they made it look as big as possible. For instance, would they show a view of the city like this...
or like this...
Companies don't make their products look less than what they are. They make them appear as great as possible.
Here's the first trailer for IV - http://youtu.be/M80K51DosFo
Do you see how most of the views of the buildings are from a low angle? That's to make everything appear larger.
-
I keep on forgetting to mention this: Comparing screenshots from IV would be fine except EVERYTHING depends on the camera's zoom. That's a huge reason why trying to tie all these screenshots/trailer screencaps together for an actual scaled map has been a pain in the ass. They are all a little different.
Zoom has no effect on the scaled pics. The Bank Tower is 70% as tall as the Empire State Building.
Every method I've used comes to the same conclusion - the area of Los Santos city is roughly the size of Algonquin and Alderney combined or smaller. I don't see anything that suggests it's any bigger than that.
Almost the entire city of Los Santos can be seen in the oil well and helicopter pics and it's not as dense or vertical as Liberty City. There has to be significantly more city area in the game.
-
It also contained the suggestion that using Google and doing some research might be better than posting rhetorical questions.
Rhetorical question? Asking how big a map is isn't a rhetorical question. Also, this is a message board. People ask questions and normal people answer them. Some other people would rather start a fight.
The staff haven't had to delete a page worth of my posts in this threadWho had a page worth of posted deleted? Not me.
The validity of your map speculation, which I found interesting at first, is being upstaged by your tendency to bicker. The Pudding doth protest too much, methinks. Chill out.All I asked was how big SA was compared to IV. Instead of answering or ignoring the question, you decided to start a fight. Don't pretend this isn't what you wanted.
You haven't contributed anything to this thread. You've made it worse. What we're doing now is because of you. #FACT
-
2
-
Poll: Next Trailer Release
in GTA 5 Pre-Release Discussion (Closed)
Posted · Report reply
It will be released before the Game Informer article.