PDA

View Full Version : Size of Frontier



tjbyrum1
10-18-2012, 10:56 PM
What is the your personal estimated size of the frontier as compared to RDR's map?

Just curious.

F4H bandicoot
10-18-2012, 11:02 PM
Nowhere near as big.

Slayer_WTF
10-18-2012, 11:02 PM
1-1,5/4,

FinalJ1
10-18-2012, 11:26 PM
As rdr mmm... Don't know but I do know what it is to brotherhood. Stated in Playstation Magazine issue 062, 'the wilderness is 150% the size of brotherhoods Rome. And Boston and New York are 75% of brotherhoods Rome.

Evenesque
10-19-2012, 12:11 AM
Horizontal footprint? About half to three fourths. In terms of navigable game space? 1.5 to 2 times as much

rileypoole1234
10-19-2012, 12:12 AM
It's not literally as big, but it'll feel as big.

Free_Hidings
10-19-2012, 12:40 AM
So basically smaller but more detailed / content filled?

tjbyrum1
10-19-2012, 12:47 AM
I'm satisfied. Some of the RDR map was part towns anyway.

I was just comparing the 'hunting size' is all

rileypoole1234
10-19-2012, 12:52 AM
So basically smaller but more detailed / content filled?

Pretty much. From what we've seen there'll be more happening in it and less huge open spaces with nothing in them.

tjbyrum1
10-19-2012, 02:06 AM
Good. I am satisfied.

MetalCreed
10-19-2012, 02:11 AM
Rome is larger than RDR's map.

RDR is more detailed, but in ACB there's more density because you can climb stuff.

Dunno if that makes sense though lol

But compared to the Frontier..
It's probably slightly smaller.
It should be as awesome though.

tjbyrum1
10-19-2012, 02:27 AM
I understand MetalCreed, RDR's map was certinaly wider but Rome had a larger surface area.

But what I was trying to determine was how large the hunting areas were.

Evenesque
10-19-2012, 03:11 AM
What all of us should be asking is will it be more fun?



We already know the game is massive. The only thing left that's worth speculating is whether or not it will be fun. Sure, size can determine to what extent the degree of fun is stretched, but at some point you've got to realize that a game map can really only be so big on a 360 or PS3, and open world games go for as big as they can manage. We don't see that big of a difference really in map sizes. The biggest difference we see is how well it's used.

LoyalACFan
10-19-2012, 03:14 AM
Rome is larger than RDR's map.

I'm 99% sure that's not true. It takes longer to run diagonally across RDR's entire map on a horse at full speed than it does to run across Rome on foot.

Evenesque
10-19-2012, 03:27 AM
I'm 99% sure that's not true. It takes longer to run diagonally across RDR's entire map on a horse at full speed than it does to run across Rome on foot.

Pretty sure you can't do that completely diagonally in RDR seeing as there's a river in the way with only 3 ways to cross it.

tjbyrum1
10-19-2012, 03:36 AM
I'm 99% sure that's not true. It takes longer to run diagonally across RDR's entire map on a horse at full speed than it does to run across Rome on foot.

He meant the surface area that is available to the player. Every inch of the ground, every wall, every roof, every cliff - all scalable in AC. Whereas in RDR only the ground and roofs were traversal.

It's like a cube. Unfolded or folded, it's still the same surface area, but one is 'bigger' than the other. RDR would be the 'unfolded' version, and Rome would be a folded cube.

FinalJ1
10-19-2012, 03:59 AM
He meant the surface area that is available to the player. Every inch of the ground, every wall, every roof, every cliff - all scalable in AC. Whereas in RDR only the ground and roofs were traversal.

It's like a cube. Unfolded or folded, it's still the same surface area, but one is 'bigger' than the other. RDR would be the 'unfolded' version, and Rome would be a folded cube.
Perfect metaphors for the maps.

pacmanate
10-19-2012, 01:23 PM
It will be big enough considering that its got more buldings etc

tjbyrum1
10-19-2012, 02:31 PM
Perfect metaphors for the maps.

:D