Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

I think i know why they dint add planes

15 replies to this topic
sintrum
  • sintrum

    GTA Fanatic

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 May 2008

#1

Posted 05 August 2008 - 03:19 AM

The 911 Issu(so we wouldent make a remake,if they had one on pc and made mods)

And planes for a small city?Nah i think helis should be just fine

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#2

Posted 05 August 2008 - 03:21 AM

This has been discussed many times before. It's not really because of 911, but because of the size limitations of the map. Maybe the new physics might have had something to do with it too.

spaceeinstein
  • spaceeinstein

    巧克力

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2003

#3

Posted 05 August 2008 - 03:29 AM

It could be problems loading the map when traveling at high speeds. Remember SA?

Pat
  • Pat

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006

#4

Posted 05 August 2008 - 03:31 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Aug 4 2008, 22:21)
Maybe the new physics might have had something to do with it too.

I think this is the most plausible answer. Grand Theft Auto IV was giving them the chance to test how a GTA game would work out with RAGE and Euphoria and such, as was the case with the jump from GTA II to GTA III.

I'm not sure if anyone knows this or not, but there's a line in the handling.cfg file with the name "DODO." It seems planes were going to be in the game, but were removed for some reason. Miamivicecity's theory above seems very plausible to me.

[WoW]
  • [WoW]

    I LUB THE DUCKY

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2008

#5

Posted 05 August 2008 - 04:06 AM

They didn't add planes for "realism" Do you actually believe that Niko can fly a plane?
Realism=no fun

Stink_Fist
  • Stink_Fist

    Goo Goo G'Joob

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2007

#6

Posted 05 August 2008 - 05:38 AM

Simple, only one airport. dozingoff.gif

sanandreas luva101
  • sanandreas luva101

    AKA Deri

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2007

#7

Posted 05 August 2008 - 08:07 AM

QUOTE ([WoW] @ Aug 5 2008, 05:06)
They didn't add planes for "realism" Do you actually believe that Niko can fly a plane?

yeah CJ could and he was just some gangsta

MrSpencer
  • MrSpencer

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 May 2008

#8

Posted 05 August 2008 - 09:05 AM

QUOTE (sanandreas luva101 @ Aug 5 2008, 08:07)
QUOTE ([WoW)
,Aug 5 2008, 05:06] They didn't add planes for "realism" Do you actually believe that Niko can fly a plane?

yeah CJ could and he was just some gangsta

Although i don't necessarily agree with his reasoning, i think that's the whole point of what he's trying to say.

The buzzword of GTA4 seems to be realism, and that could hardly be said for SA.

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#9

Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:25 AM

I doubt the reason for excluding planes was for realism. How is it any more realistic for Niko to drive a car, then it is to fly a plane?

Nah I'll stick to my two reasons above.

cimt
  • cimt

    [★] TCD

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2007

#10

Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:29 AM

QUOTE (sanandreas luva101 @ Aug 5 2008, 08:07)
QUOTE ([WoW)
,Aug 5 2008, 05:06] They didn't add planes for "realism" Do you actually believe that Niko can fly a plane?

yeah CJ could and he was just some gangsta

CJ had flying lessons though. So he doesn't count.

Meadsy4742
  • Meadsy4742

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 May 2008

#11

Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:30 AM

CJ learnt to fly planes if you ever completed the game. I don't mind the fact of there being no planes in IV. What I wouldn't mind in the new DLC though is a few more different helicopters, if physics allow, maybe the heli from SA that can pick things up, or if they don't want to take things from an old game, get a chinook - that would make great fun!

SonOfLiberty
  • SonOfLiberty

    Ice cold slavic killer

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Serbia

#12

Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:32 AM

Yeah I like the helicopters more anyway. They're much more agile through a city like LC.


joeboi94
  • joeboi94

    jc944444444444ghfgtgh

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2008

#13

Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:35 AM

QUOTE (Stink_Fist @ Aug 5 2008, 05:38)
Simple, only one airport. dozingoff.gif

exactly, where are you really going to fly to??? unrealistic...

CarpetDweller
  • CarpetDweller

    The steak is a lie

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2004

#14

Posted 05 August 2008 - 10:59 AM

Although this was discussed to death many times, even before the game was released, I feel like posting again.

There are many arguments people make for them not including planes. Even the ones given by Rockstar don't really hold up. I think the simple answer is they they just didn't want to add them this time. Some of the excuses people have come up with and my responses follow:

QUOTE
There is only one airport

In the imaginary world that exists around LC there are clearly other places that would have airports. We see planes taking off for other destinations and we hear about Los Santos, Vice City and the others throughout the game. So for "realistic" reasons there should be accessible planes in the game.
Withing the limitations of the actual gameworld there is only one airport, but that's really all you need. I'd be willing to bet that most people who wanted to fly planes in SA in a "realistic" way where you take off and land in a sensible fashion could still acheive this with one airport. You take off, fly around and then land again at the same airport. The other reasons for flying planes were either to get somewhere else quickly or to just have fun dodging through canyons and around tight spaces in buildings. In most cases these probably ended with a crash or bailing out and parachuting to the ground. I certainly didn't safely land 90% of the planes I flew in San Andreas.


QUOTE
911 - people would recreate it

So what? It has been recreated so many times in the past in all forms of media. You can still find videos of these and the real thing online. I can achieve a more realistic recreation with a flight simulator. I was able to fly planes into skyscrapers in San Andreas and no-one cared. It wasn't New York, but there isn't a WTC in LC either. It's not going to turn me into a terrorist. If people really find it that hard to divorce games from reality then GTA is certainly not a game you should be playing.

QUOTE
Niko wouldn't be able to fly a plane

But he can fly a helicopter? Niko has a mysterious military past, so we accept the helicopter, but not the plane? Hmm. From my understanding it is much harder to fly a helicopter than it is to fly a plane.

As for the earlier comment about the silliness of CJ flying planes while being just a gangsta. There are 2 things to mention here:
A. The GTAIII era is clearly more cartoonish than the GTAIV era. Therefore you can't use an example from one to prove a point about the other.
B. CJ wasn't just a gangsta. Those were his roots, but he is a human being just as capable of learning to fly a plane as anyone else. Remember that he was practically forced to attend a flying school where he was taught how to do it. While not being completely realistic, this is still enough of an excuse in the GTAIII universe. It wasn't as if he just jumped in a plane and was excellent on his first try.

[Breaking my own rule about using GTAIII era as an example in IV] In GTAIII Claude should not realistically know how to fly a plane. The game world wasn't even designed with plane flight taken into account. Yet the Dodo was available as a vehicle. Many people tried it and gave up as it was too difficult to control, however many other players got lots of enjoyment from learning how to do it and achieveing great flights around the city. So, just like Claude/Fido would do in reality, they learnt the skill required.

Getting back to Niko. I don't really like the argument about things not being realistic. I can buy it with the jetpack, but bicycles, lawnmowers, go-karts etc do exist in everyday life. The strength of GTA has always been about the freedom to do whatever you want and not only what is necessary for the story. So if I see a lawnmower/hot air balloon/skateboard I should be allowed to try to drive it. They can still make it realistically difficult to control or send police after me for doing so, but it's still realistic for Niko to 'have a go'.


QUOTE
GTAIV couldn't cope with the loading times and draw distance required for planes

I think we are getting closer to the truth here. Distant pop-up is still evident when using the helicopters in IV and flying anything like the Hydra would certainly have issues. However a Dodo would likely fly lower and slower than a Maverick, so why are these left out?

QUOTE
Physics

I don't know enough about programming to really comment here, but I remember someone saying how just adding motorcycles in VC meant a whole lot of work on adding new physics. So from this I deduce that you add the physics for a particular vehicle type (e.g Car) and then tweak it for each of the variations (e.g. Blista / Infernus / Sentinal). Then when you add the physics for another vehicle type (motorcycle / helicopter / plane) you have to start from scratch again.
If I'm right on that, then just adding the Dodo as the only plane would still be a lot of unnecessary work.

QUOTE
They'll add it in DLC

I'm getting sick of seeing this in every topic. I see it applied to the absense of anything from fingerless gloves to jetpacks to Staten Island. I would certainly not be happy if R* did not include an already accepted part of a GTA game for the sole purpose of later charging us for it. I have no problem if the Xbox exclusives are new missions, characters, clothing, vehicles or even a new island. But anything that would have been expected prior to IV, but we were then told would now not be included should only be added if it is free for everyone. There is a difference between adding content and removing it so that you can charge more for it later.

Overall I'd say the most likely reason for the absence of planes is due to 2 things:
1. The time it would take to add them and perfect them.
2. How the inclusion of planes may make GTA feel smaller and more glitchy due to the draw-distance problems and speed you can get from one part to another.

MrSpencer
  • MrSpencer

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 May 2008

#15

Posted 06 August 2008 - 08:22 AM

I think that's pretty much a full stop for this topic!

TheSamurai Hobo
  • TheSamurai Hobo

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 May 2008

#16

Posted 06 August 2008 - 11:22 AM

QUOTE (spaceeinstein @ Aug 5 2008, 03:29)
It could be problems loading the map when traveling at high speeds. Remember SA?

I must have died like 30 times from invisible trees sarcasm.gif

but, no, it isn't because 9/11 wink.gif




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users