Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Planes in GTA....

67 replies to this topic
JayM
  • JayM

    Mighty Ink

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 May 2008

#1

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:10 PM

I don't know if people have mentioned this already but I can imagine that is has been talked about because it's pretty obvious but when people talk about "Why aren't aeroplanes flyable in GTAIV", I thought the answer would be because of the terror attacks of 9/11.
Surely if non-players of GTA saw that you could fly planes in a city resembling New York, and maybe saw videos of people flying them into buildings or whatever then it would cause controversy and be a very risky move of Rockstar, but I feel it was a necessary one to take them out and avoid uproar. Also when people say that planes could not work in the city I disagree- theres an airport with planes there and it's not like you fly on the ground, but in the air where it doesn't matter what the landscape is like.

So I think that the uproar that putting planes in the game would of caused due to 9/11 is why they were taken out as a working vehicle. But like I said I don't know if this has been talked about in these forums or not but I havn't seen any thing on it and I want to know how people feel about the decision not to include aeroplanes that you can fly in the game.

beanmike206
  • beanmike206

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2007

#2

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:14 PM

i think its been talked about before, i think.

i dont see the problem, people did it on SA. flew planes into building.

woop-dee-do.

it would nice to try and fly between building though sly.gif

Furnace
  • Furnace

    TheEuropeanConnection

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 May 2008

#3

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:15 PM Edited by Furnace, 31 August 2008 - 11:22 PM.

This issue has been discussed to death. No one knows why planes were taken out as a feature, the 911 crap is just speculation and a theory.

Rockstar's answer was because the geographical size was too small and there was only one airport. I'm not saying I believe everything that spews out of a company's mouth, but this is more likely than to avoid "controversy" which I doubt.

Edit: Jay M did you by any chance used to be a member of PS3 forums?

JohnnyVendetta
  • JohnnyVendetta

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2006
  • None

#4

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE (JayM @ Aug 31 2008, 23:10)
I don't know if people have mentioned this already but I can imagine that is has been talked about because it's pretty obvious but when people talk about "Why aren't aeroplanes flyable in GTAIV", I thought the answer would be because of the terror attacks of 9/11.
Surely if non-players of GTA saw that you could fly planes in a city resembling New York, and maybe saw videos of people flying them into buildings or whatever then it would cause controversy and be a very risky move of Rockstar, but I feel it was a necessary one to take them out and avoid uproar. Also when people say that planes could not work in the city I disagree- theres an airport with planes there and it's not like you fly on the ground, but in the air where it doesn't matter what the landscape is like.

So I think that the uproar that putting planes in the game would of caused due to 9/11 is why they were taken out as a working vehicle. But like I said I don't know if this has been talked about in these forums or not but I havn't seen any thing on it and I want to know how people feel about the decision not to include aeroplanes that you can fly in the game.

-_-


..... if you searched you could find they're are more topics with babies crying about the lack of planes than anything else.

This has nothing to do with 9/11. Simply, the game was meant to be realistic within it's limitations. Why do you need a plane to fly over one city in under 30 seconds? There won't be any planes in DLC and unless the next one in the series is more than one city I wouldn't see a point in them including them again. Don't get me wrong, I loved planes in San Andreas because they fit in with flying around a state and multiple airports (or not >:D) but I feel Rockstar's path with the GTA 4 was the right one.

livejoker
  • livejoker

    G.O.A.T Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2007
  • None

#5

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:19 PM

QUOTE (JayM @ Aug 31 2008, 23:10)
I don't know if people have mentioned this already but I can imagine that is has been talked about because it's pretty obvious but when people talk about "Why aren't aeroplanes flyable in GTAIV", I thought the answer would be because of the terror attacks of 9/11.
Surely if non-players of GTA saw that you could fly planes in a city resembling New York, and maybe saw videos of people flying them into buildings or whatever then it would cause controversy and be a very risky move of Rockstar, but I feel it was a necessary one to take them out and avoid uproar. Also when people say that planes could not work in the city I disagree- theres an airport with planes there and it's not like you fly on the ground, but in the air where it doesn't matter what the landscape is like.

So I think that the uproar that putting planes in the game would of caused due to 9/11 is why they were taken out as a working vehicle. But like I said I don't know if this has been talked about in these forums or not but I havn't seen any thing on it and I want to know how people feel about the decision not to include aeroplanes that you can fly in the game.

Not really. It's because of the size of this tiny map. People would just get into a copter and film the planes circling LC. "OMG!!11!! 9/11 ATTACK R* STYLE! SUE THOSE BETCHES!!!!" =\.... lol.gif that'd be pretttttah funny.

I'm sure JohnnyK already did that, so...
On topic: People would just film abit of the flying planes and blame R* for mocking the 9/11 attacks. R* laughed of ALOT of things, but they won't go that far and mock history.

JayM
  • JayM

    Mighty Ink

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 May 2008

#6

Posted 31 August 2008 - 11:27 PM

QUOTE (Furnace @ Aug 31 2008, 23:15)
Edit: Jay M did you by any chance used to be a member of PS3 forums?

I used to own a PS3 but no I wasn't on any forums.

On topic: Reading the last few comments I realise that there are actually a few reasons why planes weren't included such as the size of the map, etc. and I thought 9/11 would be a perfectly understable reason not to have them, but I also didn't realise that it had been talked about so much as I'm fairly new to the forums but it's interesting to learn more info on it.

LethalCrizzle
  • LethalCrizzle

    Lethal Crizzle

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2008

#7

Posted 01 September 2008 - 01:34 AM

People can fly helicopters in buildings and take the p*ss... so you might aswell add planes i dont fink there are people out there to throw 911 in peoples faces tho if there are then oh sh*t

johnnyk1
  • johnnyk1

    Johnny kazuki

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 06 Jun 2008

#8

Posted 01 September 2008 - 01:50 AM

You guys are kidding me right? of course it was because of 9/11.

liberty city is clone of new york city where the player can bowl play darts steal cars go and rampages...oh and fly planes in to bulidings.....yea right Gta 4 would be boycotted before you can say "Niko baby show me some love"

CarnageRacing00
  • CarnageRacing00

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 May 2008
  • United-States

#9

Posted 01 September 2008 - 02:45 AM

Whether or not R* really left them out because of 9/11, I don't know. I'm pretty sure it's because the logistics of it all just didn't make sense - the whole thing about the map being too small tends to seem appropriate - but regardless, you can search YouTube and find videos that kids made of flying planes into buildings in San Andreas, videos titled "9/11 recreated" with a long list of comments bashing America, Americans, and all the people that died that day (not to mention all of the psychotic conspiracy theories people came up with).

Fact is this - despite what you see on television, not all Americans are fat, dumb or redneck. There were good people in those towers and on those planes. Not all of them were Americans anyway.

To ever mock or ridicule a mass murder like that is extremely tasteless. I don't find WW2 jokes funny, nor do I find slavery, Holocaust, or Chernobyl jokes humorous. Those were tragic times (even though Chernobyl was an accident and not a crime against humanity) and don't deserve to be mocked.

If Rockstar left planes out of GTA IV so that they weren't providing the tools for people to mock or make fun of the events that took place on 9/11 - I say more power to them. It was a wise choice and I'd have done the same thing.

CryptReaperDorian
  • CryptReaperDorian

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2007

#10

Posted 01 September 2008 - 03:57 AM

R* said it was because it was one city (actually 2 as Alderney was its own city and state), but the size and 9/11 didn't really have anything to do with it IMO. I mean GTA IV's LC is 3 times larger than VC and 3.75 times larger than GTA III's LC and they had planes.

Isn't gunning down 100 people terrorism? Of course it is! 9/11 was just another way to cause terrorism (more like 3,000 people died than 100). Even though not as serious, R* is not afraid to mock. They mocked Jack Thompson, the GTA SA Hot Coffee incident, 100s of companies, politics, races, and almost everything else.

My take is that it was because of the landscape, physics, and framerate. The landscape is made heavily of buildings and structures so if you wanted to land the plane and be able to fly it later you probably won't be able to do that (even though the Skimmer would of been good as it can land on water and is not that fast so it probably won't be bad for framerate).

The physics might of been faulty as they would have to use motion capture, tests, or whatever they do to capture the damage of a plane and would probably look odd without doing those.

Framerate in GTA IV can't take an Infernus topping the speed of 208 mph, so how would it take a plane going atleast 400 or 500 mph? They did it with GTA SA but it was way too noticeable that the framerate became just awful. In SA the framerate would seem to drop like 5 frames per second or something like that and R* wouldn't want that.

BioVirus
  • BioVirus

    The Godfather

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2004

#11

Posted 01 September 2008 - 05:05 AM

I will always assume it is because of September 11, 2001. Didn't RockStar get into enough trouble with Hot Coffee mod when they released San Andreas? I can understand why they would avoid adding any planes.

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#12

Posted 01 September 2008 - 05:47 AM

I think it has more to do with technical aspects (as the framerate IMO just couldn't stand flying and you basically have nowhere to fly) of the game while the terrorist attack serves only as an excuse. For instance, if for the next GTA they chose Madrid, would they put the subway in the game? Probably yes.

PulpFiction
  • PulpFiction

    Godfather

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Vatican-City
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Member in the OGA 2012

#13

Posted 01 September 2008 - 05:53 AM

QUOTE (mkey82 @ Sep 1 2008, 16:47)
I think it has more to do with technical aspects (as the framerate IMO just couldn't stand flying and you basically have nowhere to fly) of the game while the terrorist attack serves only as an excuse. For instance, if for the next GTA they chose Madrid, would they put the subway in the game? Probably yes.

Yeah that's what I think too. I highly doubt 9/11 would be the reason. You can still commit terrorist attacks such as using Packie's car bombs.

I'm thinking it's got more to do with the framerate, and the like.

mkey82
  • mkey82

    Keep riding hard, son

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008

#14

Posted 01 September 2008 - 06:49 AM

QUOTE (Miamivicecity @ Sep 1 2008, 07:53)
I'm thinking it's got more to do with the framerate, and the like.

The planes in GTA have always been a bit tweaked as to limit their maximum speed. In IV this would be even more evident. The size of the map is a bit limiting factor. VC had an even smaller map, but Dodo fit perfectly.

GroomLake51
  • GroomLake51

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2005

#15

Posted 01 September 2008 - 02:54 PM

R* says a lot of things about their games. That's not to say it's true. It's utter crap to say "the map is too small" to have flyable planes included. They shouldn't have wasted a good portion of the map on a commercial sized airport, then.

My opinion is they they're trying to save all the "goodies" like planes, parachutes, tanks, etc... for the next version. Why you ask? So they can have your money. It's called business. Nobody is going to want to play a game with all the same features as the last.

Let's be real - they're running out of ideas. Unfortunately, it slightly sucks they're "downgrading" their games.

This isn't a complaint, though. R*'s airplane/helicopter flight dynamics were rubbish. Take it from a student pilot. Also, to include to that: the vehicular dynamics of the game were also rubbish - any of you with a driver's license know that's a fact.

Peter Shaw
  • Peter Shaw

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2008

#16

Posted 01 September 2008 - 03:00 PM

QUOTE (beanmike206 @ Aug 31 2008, 23:14)
i think its been talked about before, i think.

i dont see the problem, people did it on SA. flew planes into building.

woop-dee-do.

it would nice to try and fly between building though sly.gif

Agreed

CarnageRacing00
  • CarnageRacing00

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 May 2008
  • United-States

#17

Posted 01 September 2008 - 03:58 PM

QUOTE (GroomLake51 @ Sep 1 2008, 14:54)
This isn't a complaint, though. R*'s airplane/helicopter flight dynamics were rubbish. Take it from a student pilot. Also, to include to that: the vehicular dynamics of the game were also rubbish - any of you with a driver's license know that's a fact.

Thank God it's just a video game and not a flying/driving simulator, then.

numdmind
  • numdmind

    numdmind

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2005

#18

Posted 01 September 2008 - 04:53 PM

QUOTE (JayM @ Aug 31 2008, 18:10)
I don't know if people have mentioned this already but I can imagine that is has been talked about because it's pretty obvious but when people talk about "Why aren't aeroplanes flyable in GTAIV", I thought the answer would be because of the terror attacks of 9/11.
Surely if non-players of GTA saw that you could fly planes in a city resembling New York, and maybe saw videos of people flying them into buildings or whatever then it would cause controversy and be a very risky move of Rockstar, but I feel it was a necessary one to take them out and avoid uproar. Also when people say that planes could not work in the city I disagree- theres an airport with planes there and it's not like you fly on the ground, but in the air where it doesn't matter what the landscape is like.

So I think that the uproar that putting planes in the game would of caused due to 9/11 is why they were taken out as a working vehicle. But like I said I don't know if this has been talked about in these forums or not but I havn't seen any thing on it and I want to know how people feel about the decision not to include aeroplanes that you can fly in the game.

Give this 9/11 nonsense a rest already. It's was clearly explained by the game's producers themselves why there were no planes in the game.

Planes aren't there because it's one single city, and R* felt it unnecessary to include them in this iteration of GTA. That is directly from Dan Houser himself.

I cannot believe how simple-minded the majority of you are.

You people need to let it go. It happened 8 years ago. The terrorists have achieved their goal because you people still live in fear over this. I laugh at you because you can't let it go.

The official reason is because it;s one city, and the city is too small for planes. The map is too small. Your lame conspiracy theories are only good for mental masturbation.


numdmind
  • numdmind

    numdmind

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2005

#19

Posted 01 September 2008 - 04:55 PM

QUOTE (BioVirus @ Sep 1 2008, 00:05)
I will always assume it is because of September 11, 2001. Didn't RockStar get into enough trouble with Hot Coffee mod when they released San Andreas? I can understand why they would avoid adding any planes.

Then you will always be an ignorant fool. I hope you never breed.

CarnageRacing00
  • CarnageRacing00

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 May 2008
  • United-States

#20

Posted 01 September 2008 - 05:04 PM

QUOTE (numdmind @ Sep 1 2008, 16:53)
Give this 9/11 nonsense a rest already. It's was clearly explained by the game's producers themselves why there were no planes in the game.

Planes aren't there because it's one single city, and R* felt it unnecessary to include them in this iteration of GTA. That is directly from Dan Houser himself.

I cannot believe how simple-minded the majority of you are.

You people need to let it go. It happened 8 years ago. The terrorists have achieved their goal because you people still live in fear over this. I laugh at you because you can't let it go.

The official reason is because it;s one city, and the city is too small for planes. The map is too small. Your lame conspiracy theories are only good for mental masturbation.

The Dodo from GTA 3 had it's wings clipped because of 9/11, and 9/11 is also the reason the LCPD police cars were changed from NYPD blue to black and white. In all fairness, GTA 3 was released a lot closer to 9/11 than GTA IV, but...

...at least you can understand now why some people might assume 9/11 to be the reason why planes are not accessible in IV. Your comments were not needed and unhelpful. I was a sophomore in high school on 9/11 and still to this day have not figured out a way to process what happened on that day properly.. I feel sad, angry, scared and frustrated over it. It still haunts me to know that there are people in the world who believe that mass slaughter is a fast pass into heaven.

A lot of the people posting on these forums were very young in 2001, much younger than I was, so I can see how they'd be ever more confused and have even more trouble sorting it out in there heads. It's not difficult to understand an infatuation with something like 9/11. When something traumatizes you, it's very easy to find yourself thinking about it a little too much.

Maybe you should lighten up a bit before you go getting angry with people for having a hard time coping with something that has forever changed an entire nation.

JayM
  • JayM

    Mighty Ink

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 May 2008

#21

Posted 01 September 2008 - 08:39 PM

QUOTE (numdmind @ Sep 1 2008, 16:53)
Give this 9/11 nonsense a rest already.  It's was clearly explained by the game's producers themselves why there were no planes in the game.

Planes aren't there because it's one single city, and R* felt it unnecessary to include them in this iteration of GTA.  That is directly from Dan Houser himself.

I cannot believe how simple-minded the majority of you are.

You people need to let it go.  It happened 8 years ago.  The terrorists have achieved their goal because you people still live in fear over this.  I laugh at you because you can't let it go.

The official reason is because it;s one city, and the city is too small for planes.  The map is too small.  Your lame conspiracy theories are only good for mental masturbation.

OMG, let me try and straighten this out since you obviously havn't picked it up:

I'm not saying 9/11 is the reason that planes were taken out, it was just a theory that I thought might not have been looked into yet, but which obviously has. It's perfectly understanable to think that this might have been a reason for aeroplanes absence in IV and I'm not talking about the subject of 9/11 independantly but only bringing it up because it links with the games setting and the fact that planes were taken out of the game.

I wasn't looking for people to agree or disagree with me but I just wanted to see why other people thought that planes wern't in the game as I don't know what the game makers said on the subject. So don't bitch, asshole.

forgrif
  • forgrif

    Clockwork Ninja

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2008
  • None

#22

Posted 02 September 2008 - 04:28 AM

I dont know about you but i HATED barf8bd.gif the flying school in SA it took me a week week and a half . I was like WTF there are 4 schools in Grand Theft AUTO NOT AERO AUTO NOT AERO BUT AUTO and the only school needed for the story line was the cursed flying school . I will be realy supprised if anyone finds the school interesting and fun , i would if it wasent nessesery for the stoy yes it would be fun . Ever since i dont like planes in a gtAUTO game ive got that mutch sick of flying !

WellsMcK
  • WellsMcK

    Mt. Hood

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2005
  • None

#23

Posted 02 September 2008 - 06:24 AM

In GTA IV the vehicles stuck mostly to cars. So putting in planes would be hard with how slow they might move or the learning curve. Helicopters were in two missions and boats were in maybe four. Cars and bikes were in just about every other one.

You can't totally put off the 9/11 thing. I think it's a mix of both. We don't want people crashing into buildings and making controversy and the city is too small. Vice City was too small for planes, that's why they added one as fast as a helicopter. GTA III's plane was horrible you really had to push yourself to get skilled with that thing. Plane's just don't fit. Or maybe the Belkan Peace force didn't have planes. Niko doesn't know to fly one, Somehow an old guy out of jail knows how to and a guy that doesn't talk knows how, and some gangster does, but Rockstar went further into realism.

Oops kind of ranted there.

goatsrus
  • goatsrus

    Straight Up Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2007

#24

Posted 02 September 2008 - 08:21 AM

I love you GroomLake51. You are a legend because finally someone sees it as I see it. The hype for GTA IV was huge you could do this, this, this, that and the other thing, hundreds upon hundreds of different features were supposed to be included. Then suddenly, when the game comes out, only a small fraction of these features can be performed (fingerless gloves I miss you lol). Any way back to seriousness, what I think happened was Rockstar were busy making the game had it nearly finished by the original deadline, but then some bright spark posed the question 'How do we top this?'. They then increased the deadline and went about taking things out of the game, and down-tweaking things so they could be added to the next game. Just look at the the previous games. GTA III, a basic game (legendary, but at the core quite basic), Vice City, small improvement, San Andreas, blows them both out of the water with features. I think Rockstar are saving things like buying business and houses, all the weapons, and of course fingerless gloves for later installments due to the fact that if they were put into IV, they simply couldn't improve it in this generation of consoles.

Tony Mozzarelli 80
  • Tony Mozzarelli 80

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2008

#25

Posted 02 September 2008 - 08:48 AM

If your mind was numb you'd probably be an ignorant f*cker too, so don't be too hard on him

WellsMcK
  • WellsMcK

    Mt. Hood

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2005
  • None

#26

Posted 02 September 2008 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (GroomLake51 @ Sep 1 2008, 07:54)


My opinion is they they're trying to save all the "goodies" like planes, parachutes, tanks, etc... for the next version. Why you ask? So they can have your money. It's called business. Nobody is going to want to play a game with all the same features as the last.

Let's be real - they're running out of ideas. Unfortunately, it slightly sucks they're "downgrading" their games.


They are running out of ideas. I don't think we would be playing in the same city if they weren't. And the missions would have varied more.

But the business thing. If people had known that some of those things weren't in before they pre-ordered they probably wouldn't have bought it. Maybe there was a reason to all the "not releasing details".

It is good and bad. We lose things we will get them back but they will be the same used out details.

the bocust horde
  • the bocust horde

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Aug 2008

#27

Posted 02 September 2008 - 05:24 PM Edited by the bocust horde, 02 September 2008 - 05:28 PM.

if there were planes in gta4 i would have to fly a plane into the empire state building
but the impact would be so fake the plane would bounce off the building

chitoryu12
  • chitoryu12

    Resident Actor, Dancer, and Singer

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2005

#28

Posted 02 September 2008 - 09:54 PM

QUOTE
A lot of the people posting on these forums were very young in 2001, much younger than I was, so I can see how they'd be ever more confused and have even more trouble sorting it out in there heads. It's not difficult to understand an infatuation with something like 9/11. When something traumatizes you, it's very easy to find yourself thinking about it a little too much.

Maybe you should lighten up a bit before you go getting angry with people for having a hard time coping with something that has forever changed an entire nation.


Look at other countries. The United States of America has suffered far less terrorist attacks than most countries. Very few times has any foreigner attacked American soil as an act of war, either on the part of their country or a terrorist group. Yet you don't see controversy in Spain, England, or Tokyo over a video game that has some minor connection to a terrorist attack. Why is that?

And the attack did nothing to change the nation. Again, look at the rest of the world. Modern times have bombings and shootings up the wazoo even in Europe, one of the most civilized areas of the planet. They still go about their daily business. If a terrorist attack could change the nation so much that personal freedoms are being violated in the name of a "war on terror" and fear is rampant over foreigners, especially those of Middle Eastern descent or the Muslim religion, then why hasn't England deported massive amounts of citizens over idiotic, baseless fears and randomly attacked other countries that have a passing connection to the attackers.

BioVirus
  • BioVirus

    The Godfather

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2004

#29

Posted 02 September 2008 - 10:28 PM Edited by BioVirus, 02 September 2008 - 10:36 PM.

It's because of September 11, 2001.

It's not because GTA IV is too small, because it's bigger than GTA III and that game had a Dodo.

It's not because GTA IV only has one airport and there would be nowhere to go, because Vice City had a seaplane so GTA IV would have plenty of places to land. It's also interesting to note that people do not fly airplanes in GTA just to go to from airport to airport. We land on busy streets and highways, in backyards, on top of traffic, etc...


It's not because of draw distance or graphics or performance issues because the Annihilator helicopter can fly at a decent speed and you can easily conclude that the Annihilator at full speed is faster than a Dodo or a Seaplane.


It's because of September 11, 2001. Grand Theft Auto, and RockStar as the creator, has received criticism from the public, activists, and even members of the United States Government. San Andreas was threatened to be pulled off the shelves in stores because of the 'pornography' of the Hot Coffee scandal. RockStar was forced to re-release another version of San Andreas that removed Hot Coffee.

The impact that Hot Coffee scandal had is still seen even in GTA IV. The Statue of Happiness is holding Hot Coffee.

Grand Theft Auto could not release the sequal to San Andreas with another scandal, this time a game that allows players to re-create plane crashing into buildings in a game based on New York City. In the era of YouTube, this would be a disaster for a company. Stockholders need to be kept happy.

chitoryu12
  • chitoryu12

    Resident Actor, Dancer, and Singer

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2005

#30

Posted 02 September 2008 - 10:37 PM

QUOTE (BioVirus @ Sep 2 2008, 22:28)
It's because of September 11, 2001.

It's not because GTA IV is too small, because it's bigger than GTA III and that game had a Dodo.

It's not because GTA IV only has one airport and there would be nowhere to go, because Vice City had a seaplane so GTA IV would have plenty of places to land. It's also interesting to note that people do not fly airplanes in GTA just to go to from airport to airport. We land on busy streets and highways, in backyards, on top of traffic, etc...


It's not because of draw distance or graphics or performance issues because the Annihilator helicopter can fly at a decent speed and you can easily conclude that the Annihilator at full speed is faster than a Dodo or a Seaplane.


It's because of September 11, 2001. Grand Theft Auto, and RockStar as the creator, has received criticism from the public, activists, and even members of the United States Government. San Andreas was threatened to be pulled off the shelves in stores because of the 'pornography' of the Hot Coffee scandal. RockStar was forced to re-release another version of San Andreas that removed Hot Coffee.

The impact that Hot Coffee scandal had is still seen even in GTA IV. The Statue of Happiness is holding Hot Coffee.

Grand Theft Auto could not release the sequal to San Andreas with another scandal, this time a game that allows players to re-create plane crashing into buildings in a game based on New York City. In the era of YouTube, this would be a disaster for a company. Stockholders need to be kept happy.

Let's see some proof of that, please.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users