![]() ![]() Games are getting simpler (Content wise) not more open, and personally I dislike it, I want to pick my own story, otherwise I would read a book. Though you have open ended exploration still available. The newer games (outside of Bethesda) seem to getting more narrow, even Skyrim seems to be somewhat narrow when it comes to dungeons, it is one directional. The simple fact that it was made almost 2 decades ago, and no game has ever come close to such a feat since, I consider it a legendary game. It trumps any game out there for choices, vast number of skills and directions to take your character, and the number of spells available in the game even. It was truely open ended, like Morrow Wind you could even kill people that were part of the main story line. Personally if you upped the graphics and interactions, I would take daggerfall over any game on your list. Size is not everything, otherwise people would still be playing daggerfall all the time. Great job though, unknown person who made this, it was a very worthwhile project. Probably about Oblivion-sized or smaller. 62,000 square miles for Daggerfall? Could you walk the entire thing? I’m also curious as to where Fallout 3’s Wasteland would be on here. As for the other maps that were too big to even be pictured? Are those all really open world or are they cheating somehow. But I suppose they have different servers and all that.īurnout Paradise is a bit of a surprise, but I suppose its less of a big deal if you get to drive around all the time. I also imagined World of Warcraft to be a lot bigger with 10 million players having to squeeze in. I thought JC was bigger, but Oblivion always seemed so damn massive to me (probably because you were hoofing it everywhere), but it’s one of the smaller ones here. Surprises include just how tiny GTA III’s map is in comparison (didn’t it seem huge at the time?) and how small Oblivion’s world is compared to Just Cause. The picture pits various open world video game maps up against each other in terms of scale. V is a lot more realistic in that department, which makes a comparison even more redundant than it already is in this case.This is a rather cool image that’s answered a question I had recently. Bicycles are between 120 and 140 km/h fast, and the hydra-jet has a velocity of less than 200km/h. SA is using a now extremely outdated engine, and the physics are anything but realistic. Also, the velocity and acceleration of vehicles in both games are not compreable with each other. The ridiculously short draw-distance in San Andreas can make one believe otherwise. V is a lot more realistic in that department, which makes a comparison even more redundant than it already is in this case. ![]() I don't know the exact number, but it's about 20 square miles big, if I recall correctly, which is 1.5 times the size of SA. So, the map is definitely bigger than San Andreas. The rest of the GTAV map, however, is clearly bigger than the city itself. Liberty City in GTA IV is 6.25 square miles big, which includes the water between the islands, and HD-era Los Santos is about the same size, apparently. We know through official statements and the official map, which was created by Aaron Garbut, that Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Vanturas, the deserts and the water between the islands are about 13.9 square miles big - it's also provable through in-game measurements. The map of GTAV is bigger than San Andreas, there is no doubt about it. This has been discussed dozens of times already. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |