Why I love SR2

[wayninja]

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

But since they do have the attack helicopter in the game for a reason besides LOLZ(See: Minigun and Flamethrower) it becomes much easier to justify it. Since there is no reason to have the minigun especially, it becomes much hardet to justify in any other way than just because.

And, regardless of whether they aimed for it and failed or not, realism IS what they shot for. That is why there are no miniguns or flamethrowers. If they decide to go the same route in the next game, expect no miniguns there.

I must have missed something... what is the reason for the attack helicopter? I'm failing to see your point that realism means providing attack helicopters while denying flamethrowers...

[Dhatz]

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

you missed that RPGs exist and they are used in a lot of wars,so why not in a game?

it's f*ckin game,would you play it if you had to start new game because "you were killed" or couldn't carry more RPGs because this is f*ckin Crysis-sh*t?

realism without possibilities and options is called moronism.

f*ck that into your mind.

[CP3NO]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

[SantiagoDomingo]

I have seen some flawed logic, not knocking anybodies intelligence or anything but, as far as RPGs go for not being realistic . . . I personally know a few people I could call that could acquire an RPG or any other number of guns. It isn't that hard to get a gun, so long as you know the right people, and when dealing with the mafia, gangs, etc . . . you are likely going to meet some of the right people.

[TT1987]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

R* might not want ridiculous fun again

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

you missed that RPGs exist and they are used in a lot of wars,so why not in a game?

it's f*ckin game,would you play it if you had to start new game because "you were killed" or couldn't carry more RPGs because this is f*ckin Crysis-sh*t?

realism without possibilities and options is called moronism.

f*ck that into your mind.

You have just made exactly the same point as i have been making

[CP3NO]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

R* might not want ridiculous fun again

We can only hope

[Ottae]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

Step it up by adding a sh*t load of random features?

 

I think, if you couldn't watch TV, there'd be more people moaning about that rather than saying that it's a pointless feature. If you've actually watched any of it, you'd see how f*cking hilarious it is, and helps route you into Liberty City. They tried to tackle the different media forms so you never complain by saying "I wish you could go on the internet".

 

I agree, the missions to incorporate such features was a little lame, but you'd probably not have bothered checking your emails otherwise and getting emails is a great way of introducing new missions and developing characters.

 

Yeah, GTA IV had a lot of features that aren't exactly fun, but those features were the ones that made you feel more part of Liberty City and the whole universe it was in. They made you learn more about the characters, as do the bowling side games.

 

It looks to me that THX looked at GTA IV and thought "Yes! They're not trying to do everything under the sun, we can swipe in and make Saints Row that game!". Rockstar never intended to make a game that forfilled everyone's requests because it wouldn't fit into the mood of GTA IV and what it was about. You can tell that Rockstar was trying to make a more serious, immersive game that lent itself more to a movie than to an arcade game.

 

Just because previous games had a sh*t load of random features, doesn't mean the sequel has to have more. Rockstar don't have to do as much as possible, they wanted to make an epic crime tale and they did.

[StanMarsh]

 

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

But since they do have the attack helicopter in the game for a reason besides LOLZ(See: Minigun and Flamethrower) it becomes much easier to justify it. Since there is no reason to have the minigun especially, it becomes much hardet to justify in any other way than just because.

And, regardless of whether they aimed for it and failed or not, realism IS what they shot for. That is why there are no miniguns or flamethrowers. If they decide to go the same route in the next game, expect no miniguns there.

I must have missed something... what is the reason for the attack helicopter? I'm failing to see your point that realism means providing attack helicopters while denying flamethrowers...

Read the topic. Seriousl., I said I'd be fine with it not being there as I don't think it fits, but you fail to read this long qoute-post argument. Until you do, you're not worth my time at all.

 

Not that you care, you LOVE cherrypicking.

 

@Ottae: Agreed.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

 

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

Step it up by adding a sh*t load of random features?

 

I think, if you couldn't watch TV, there'd be more people moaning about that rather than saying that it's a pointless feature. If you've actually watched any of it, you'd see how f*cking hilarious it is, and helps route you into Liberty City. They tried to tackle the different media forms so you never complain by saying "I wish you could go on the internet".

 

I agree, the missions to incorporate such features was a little lame, but you'd probably not have bothered checking your emails otherwise and getting emails is a great way of introducing new missions and developing characters.

 

Yeah, GTA IV had a lot of features that aren't exactly fun, but those features were the ones that made you feel more part of Liberty City and the whole universe it was in. They made you learn more about the characters, as do the bowling side games.

 

It looks to me that THX looked at GTA IV and thought "Yes! They're not trying to do everything under the sun, we can swipe in and make Saints Row that game!". Rockstar never intended to make a game that forfilled everyone's requests because it wouldn't fit into the mood of GTA IV and what it was about. You can tell that Rockstar was trying to make a more serious, immersive game that lent itself more to a movie than to an arcade game.

 

Just because previous games had a sh*t load of random features, doesn't mean the sequel has to have more. Rockstar don't have to do as much as possible, they wanted to make an epic crime tale and they did.

Yes but you surely must concede that there are many people who feel that they fell slightly

short in the epic crime tale department too.

Ok the story was good, but at times it lacked direction and focus,

and there are still many unrealistic elements that detract from the realistic story,

most notably, the ease of aquiring money, insane stunts etc,

so why include them and not other fun features?

 

 

 

@StanMarsh

i don't really see that as a good reason for including them, as they could have just added things

like stinger strips, more efficient roadblocks and such, which would have kept the realistic feel.

so why can't they take a leap, and say Niko still has some old army buddies, who can get him

crazy weapons?

Edited June 6, 2008 by Tony Mozzarelli 80

[wayninja]

that is the point, using an attack helicopter is no more realistic than using a flamethrower or mnigun,

but they included it for the sake of fun. if they were aiming for realism, the truth is, they missed.

and as you said the only way they can have true realism is the one hit kill scenario you mentioned

earlier, which neither of us want. What's the point in realism if you keep having to make excuses

for the things you're doing? as you said, why can we aquire a RPG launcher? it isn't realistic nor

should it be it is just a game in which (in my opinion) they got the balance wrong, if you want

realism you want realism, if it is Ok to include one unrealistic feature then why not add another?

They have removed a lot of unrealistic features and added nothing realistic in their stead

But since they do have the attack helicopter in the game for a reason besides LOLZ(See: Minigun and Flamethrower) it becomes much easier to justify it. Since there is no reason to have the minigun especially, it becomes much hardet to justify in any other way than just because.

And, regardless of whether they aimed for it and failed or not, realism IS what they shot for. That is why there are no miniguns or flamethrowers. If they decide to go the same route in the next game, expect no miniguns there.

I must have missed something... what is the reason for the attack helicopter? I'm failing to see your point that realism means providing attack helicopters while denying flamethrowers...

Read the topic. Seriousl., I said I'd be fine with it not being there as I don't think it fits, but you fail to read this long qoute-post argument. Until you do, you're not worth my time at all.

 

Not that you care, you LOVE cherrypicking.

You said this, you arrogant prick:

 

 

But since they do have the attack helicopter in the game for a reason besides LOLZ(See: Minigun and Flamethrower) it becomes much easier to justify it.

 

I don't need 10 pages of conversation to see it. So what is the reason? How is it justified?

[StanMarsh]

If you aren't going to take the time to read about page seven on, then you are ignorant of what I am talking about. Therefore, you aren't worth my time. But, since I'm in a jovial mood, give me a few minutes as I go over every f*cking post on this subject.

 

1- We were discussing whether miniguns or flamethrowers would be realistic.

2- Tony brought up the fact that you can jack attack helicopters.

3- I agrred with him that the attack helicopter was unrealistic and, in my opinion, should not be in the game.

4- However, since it IS in the game, if it is within reach of Niko it would make sense that he can jack it.

5- Since miniguns and flamethrowers, miniguns especially, aren't in the game and would just hit the realism train hard, it would be detrimental.

6- Since the justification for the attack chopper is just as strong as the best possible explanation on how a black market dealer would get his hands on a f*cking minigun(flamethrower cold be explained, though much strainage.).

 

 

Now, what does this mean? It means that just because they have an attack helicopter does not mean you can start piling in a whole bunch of sh*t and use the helicopter as an excuse. Sadly, the heli is in the game, I'd rather it wasn't. If the minigun was in the game, I'd have the same opinion.

 

But, to put it simply:

You don't say ok to something that may be detrimental to the atmosphere and feel just because something that is detrimental IS already in the game.

Edited June 6, 2008 by StanMarsh

[wayninja]

 

If you aren't going to take the time to read about page seven on, then you are ignorant of what I am talking about. Therefore, you aren't worth my time. But, since I'm in a jovial mood, give me a few minutes as I go over every f*cking post on this subject.

You don't need to go over it and I did read from 7 on. I'm asking about the quote above. It's not hard, just tell me if there is a reason for attack helicopters? Why do you need 4 pages of context?

 

 

 

@StanMarsh

i don't really see that as a good reason for including them, as they could have just added things

like stinger strips, more efficient roadblocks and such, which would have kept the realistic feel.

so why can't they take a leap, and say Niko still has some old army buddies, who can get him

crazy weapons?

 

Agreed, they could easily have made it an unlockable so it doesn't imbalance the storyline.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2008 by wayninja

[Ottae]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

Step it up by adding a sh*t load of random features?

 

I think, if you couldn't watch TV, there'd be more people moaning about that rather than saying that it's a pointless feature. If you've actually watched any of it, you'd see how f*cking hilarious it is, and helps route you into Liberty City. They tried to tackle the different media forms so you never complain by saying "I wish you could go on the internet".

 

I agree, the missions to incorporate such features was a little lame, but you'd probably not have bothered checking your emails otherwise and getting emails is a great way of introducing new missions and developing characters.

 

Yeah, GTA IV had a lot of features that aren't exactly fun, but those features were the ones that made you feel more part of Liberty City and the whole universe it was in. They made you learn more about the characters, as do the bowling side games.

 

It looks to me that THX looked at GTA IV and thought "Yes! They're not trying to do everything under the sun, we can swipe in and make Saints Row that game!". Rockstar never intended to make a game that forfilled everyone's requests because it wouldn't fit into the mood of GTA IV and what it was about. You can tell that Rockstar was trying to make a more serious, immersive game that lent itself more to a movie than to an arcade game.

 

Just because previous games had a sh*t load of random features, doesn't mean the sequel has to have more. Rockstar don't have to do as much as possible, they wanted to make an epic crime tale and they did.

Yes but you surely must concede that there are many people who feel that they fell slightly

short in the epic crime tale department too.

Ok the story was good, but at times it lacked direction and focus,

and there are still many unrealistic elements that detract from the realistic story,

most notably, the ease of aquiring money, insane stunts etc,

so why include them and not other fun features?

I think the only reason why it lacked direction was because it was up to you to wait for the call, and things didn't happened as linear as they didn previously, you don't always just go straight to someone's house to start the missions, you had to wait till they rang you before the mission began. It also had several different storylines at once, which all tied up towards the end.

 

I do agree there were times when I thought "Why am I doing this?" But all games have moments like that, and it's granted in such a large story, things need time to build up.

 

I think they left stunt jumps in because they've always been a part of the GTA universe and there's nothing to stop people from doing stunts, so why not reward them for it? It's not like collectables like that have to coinside with the story.

 

As I said, most of Saints Row 2's fun features would detract from Liberty City. I can't image Niko jumping in a Trashmaster and spraying folks with Sewage, it wouldn't fit.

 

I didn't think acquiring copious amounts of money was easy, especially how it takes so much off you if you die.

[RONIN1191]

Yes but you surely must concede that there are many people who feel that they fell slightly

short in the epic crime tale department too.

Ok the story was good, but at times it lacked direction and focus,

and there are still many unrealistic elements that detract from the realistic story,

most notably, the ease of aquiring money, insane stunts etc,

so why include them and not other fun features?

I'll bet there are many, judging by the number of complaints I've seen on this board (nevermind they appear to come from the same people ad nauseum); but you must admit that there are a great many people who in fact love this game, myself included.

 

You can admit that there are some things I would like to have seen, but to call them missing is to imply that they were there or intended to be there and were removed and I don't get that at all. I'm with Ottae on this...and as I've said before, I like this new direction.

 

FTR, I'll play SR2 at some point; altho I seriously doubt I'll find it a BETTER game, unless of course it actually is.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

 

If you aren't going to take the time to read about page seven on, then you are ignorant of what I am talking about. Therefore, you aren't worth my time. But, since I'm in a jovial mood, give me a few minutes as I go over every f*cking post on this subject.

You don't need to go over it and I did read from 7 on. I'm asking about the quote above. It's not hard, just tell me if there is a reason for attack helicopters? Why do you need 4 pages of context?

He is arguing that they added them as a way to make the game harder in the

higher wanted levels, but i think they could have just added more efficient

roadblocks and stinger strips, and swat teams, and still kept within the boundaries

of realism. In my opinion attack helicopters are still less of a leap of faith than

Niko's inexplicable pigeon phobia

 

 

 

 

 

@Ottae

but is Niko any more likely to go hunting pigeons for no reward, than he is to go spraying people

with garbage? i don't think so, Niko does do many things that don't fit his character, so why not

make them fun things?

Edited June 6, 2008 by Tony Mozzarelli 80

[CP3NO]

Well, I just saw the commercial that takes the p*ss out of GTAIV, gotta say, clever marketing strategy, I've loved GTA games since the very beginning, but Saints Row 2 looks like the emphasis is more on highly ridiculous fun, plus, they hit the nail on the head, would you rather watch TV in the game while watching your TV or rob a liquor store as a cop? Hmm, let me see...

Yea, and this ad means R* has to step it up

Step it up by adding a sh*t load of random features?

 

I think, if you couldn't watch TV, there'd be more people moaning about that rather than saying that it's a pointless feature. If you've actually watched any of it, you'd see how f*cking hilarious it is, and helps route you into Liberty City. They tried to tackle the different media forms so you never complain by saying "I wish you could go on the internet".

 

I agree, the missions to incorporate such features was a little lame, but you'd probably not have bothered checking your emails otherwise and getting emails is a great way of introducing new missions and developing characters.

 

Yeah, GTA IV had a lot of features that aren't exactly fun, but those features were the ones that made you feel more part of Liberty City and the whole universe it was in. They made you learn more about the characters, as do the bowling side games.

 

It looks to me that THX looked at GTA IV and thought "Yes! They're not trying to do everything under the sun, we can swipe in and make Saints Row that game!". Rockstar never intended to make a game that forfilled everyone's requests because it wouldn't fit into the mood of GTA IV and what it was about. You can tell that Rockstar was trying to make a more serious, immersive game that lent itself more to a movie than to an arcade game.

 

Just because previous games had a sh*t load of random features, doesn't mean the sequel has to have more. Rockstar don't have to do as much as possible, they wanted to make an epic crime tale and they did.

I will agree the TV is hilarious, especially the Halo parody lmao, anyways yea, if they take out pointless features, people complain aboutfalse advertising, if they put in pointless features, they complain that tiem ws wasted while making those features

[StanMarsh]

If you aren't going to take the time to read about page seven on, then you are ignorant of what I am talking about. Therefore, you aren't worth my time. But, since I'm in a jovial mood, give me a few minutes as I go over every f*cking post on this subject.

You don't need to go over it and I did read from 7 on. I'm asking about the quote above. It's not hard, just tell me if there is a reason for attack helicopters? Why do you need 4 pages of context?

He is arguing that they added them as a way to make the game harder in the

higher wanted levels, but i think they could have just added more efficient

roadblocks and stinger strips, and swat teams, and still kept within the boundaries

of realism. In my opinion attack helicopters are still less of a leap of faith than

Niko's inexplicable pigeon phobia

And I do agree. I don't LIKE the helicopter. But, since it IS in the game and you did bring up him jacking it, it is easier to justify realistically than the minigun being used on foot.

[Ottae]

FTR, I'll play SR2 at some point; altho I seriously doubt I'll find it a BETTER game, unless of course it actually is.

I think I'll probably get it as well. It's getting to a point where the two games can't be compared because since San Andreas and Saints Row 1, they've obviously gone in different directions.

 

From GTA 3 to San Andreas, Rockstar went the Saints Row route and tried to add as much content as possible to make it exciting. I think the company has matured and realises that a game doesn't have to have all those features to be gripping.

 

I'm not saying Saints Row is immature, but It'll be interesting how far they'll cram as much content in before they think enough is enough. Maybe they won't.

[StanMarsh]

If you aren't going to take the time to read about page seven on, then you are ignorant of what I am talking about. Therefore, you aren't worth my time. But, since I'm in a jovial mood, give me a few minutes as I go over every f*cking post on this subject.

You don't need to go over it and I did read from 7 on. I'm asking about the quote above. It's not hard, just tell me if there is a reason for attack helicopters? Why do you need 4 pages of context?

 

 

 

@StanMarsh

i don't really see that as a good reason for including them, as they could have just added things

like stinger strips, more efficient roadblocks and such, which would have kept the realistic feel.

so why can't they take a leap, and say Niko still has some old army buddies, who can get him

crazy weapons?

 

Agreed, they could easily have made it an unlockable so it doesn't imbalance the storyline.

The reason I need four pages of context is because I was responding in the context of the argument, and if you don't know what the argument is then you'd be lost.

[wayninja]

If you aren't going to take the time to read about page seven on, then you are ignorant of what I am talking about. Therefore, you aren't worth my time. But, since I'm in a jovial mood, give me a few minutes as I go over every f*cking post on this subject.

You don't need to go over it and I did read from 7 on. I'm asking about the quote above. It's not hard, just tell me if there is a reason for attack helicopters? Why do you need 4 pages of context?

He is arguing that they added them as a way to make the game harder in the

higher wanted levels, but i think they could have just added more efficient

roadblocks and stinger strips, and swat teams, and still kept within the boundaries

of realism. In my opinion attack helicopters are still less of a leap of faith than

Niko's inexplicable pigeon phobia

I would buy the 'it makes it harder at higher wanted levels' argument if they didn't allow you steal one yourself. Then realism and difficulty are preserved. But if you can get one, then the question remains, why not crazy weapons?

 

In for a penny, in for a pound eh?

[CP3NO]

FTR, I'll play SR2 at some point; altho I seriously doubt I'll find it a BETTER game, unless of course it actually is.

I think I'll probably get it as well. It's getting to a point where the two games can't be compared because since San Andreas and Saints Row 1, they've obviously gone in different directions.

 

From GTA 3 to San Andreas, Rockstar went the Saints Row route and tried to add as much content as possible to make it exciting. I think the company has matured and realises that a game doesn't have to have all those features to be gripping.

 

I'm not saying Saints Row is immature, but It'll be interesting how far they'll cram as much content in before they think enough is enough. Maybe they won't.

One feature that I absolutely love about SR2 is the coop, throughout the wholecampaign you can play with a friend, pretty fun if you ask me

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

 

 

You can admit that there are some things I would like to have seen, but to call them missing is to imply that they were there or intended to be there and were removed and I don't get that at all.  I'm with Ottae on this...and as I've said before, I like this new direction.

 

FTR, I'll play SR2 at some point; altho I seriously doubt I'll find it a BETTER game, unless of course it actually is.

The reason you are not seeing them as missing, is that you are looking at it as a stand

alone game, rather than a continuation of GTA as a whole, Ok we can argue that they

were never meant to be in, but we can't argue that there was not less to do in this game,

whether you like the particular features or noy is a different matter

 

 

 

 

@StanMarsh, another thing i neglected to bring up was the fact that you say the helicopter is there

so you can jack it.

Why then does this not apply to planes?

Edited June 6, 2008 by Tony Mozzarelli 80

[StanMarsh]

 

 

You can admit that there are some things I would like to have seen, but to call them missing is to imply that they were there or intended to be there and were removed and I don't get that at all.  I'm with Ottae on this...and as I've said before, I like this new direction.

 

FTR, I'll play SR2 at some point; altho I seriously doubt I'll find it a BETTER game, unless of course it actually is.

The reason you are not seeing them as missing, is that you are looking at it as a stand

alone game, rather than a continuation of GTA as a whole, Ok we can argue that they

were never meant to be in, but we can't argue that there was not less to do in this game,

whether you like the particular features or noy is a different matter

 

 

 

 

@StanMarsh, another thing i neglected to bring up was the fact that you say the helicopter is there

so you can jack it.

Why then does this not apply to planes?

The helicopter had a point- besides just flying around in the sky and then going back to the airport, there was nothing you could do with those jumbo jets. Storywise, Niko has flown a helicopter before but not to my knowledge a jet.

There is also the issues of how certain accidents involving jet planes in a NYC-based environment may be perceived by the media.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

Yes but again this is another thing that detracts from the realism, and that

doesn't change the fact that the attack helicopter doesn't really serve much

of a purpose besides fun. and what about the vigilante missions? are they

realistic? or fun?. and i noticed in another thread you say you're indifferent

to paramedic missions and firefighting, but it bothers you that we might use

a flamethrower?

[StanMarsh]

 

Yes but again this is another thing that detracts from the realism, and that

doesn't change the fact that the attack helicopter doesn't really serve much

of a purpose besides fun. and what about the vigilante missions? are they

realistic? or fun?. and i noticed in another thread you say you're indifferent

to paramedic missions and firefighting, but it bothers you that we might use

a flamethrower?

Realism wise, I think the fact that he has never flown a plane(my last point in my last post) is a good enough reason as to why he can't fly a plane.

Paramedic/Firefighter missions- All you're doing is responding to calls to fires and for medical attention. All you need to do there is get in the vehicle to hear it on the radio. I'm indifferent because the reasoning is solid enough and only requires one thing- you jack the appropiate vehicle.

Now, the flamethrower? Like I said earlier, you could almost explain the flamethrower well enough so if it was in there I wouldn't have to big a problem as long as the tank went kabloomy when a bullet hit it. I've realised over the course of the argument that my real problem is with the minigun, but they were both lumped in together at first.

The vigilante missions are explained in the mission where you are introduced to them.

[wayninja]

 

The helicopter had a point- besides just flying around in the sky and then going back to the airport, there was nothing you could do with those jumbo jets. Storywise, Niko has flown a helicopter before but not to my knowledge a jet.

There is also the issues of how certain accidents involving jet planes in a NYC-based environment may be perceived by the media.

I am honestly not trying to be a jerk, I just still don't quite understand what 'point' the helicopters had other than self determined point of making some missions dependent on them.

 

Having Niko's background explain his proficiency with a helicopter is arbitrary.

 

I sort of agree with the NYC/plane crash thing, but it still makes very little sense in terms of the other violence that appears in this game. Not that I'm accusing the 'media' of making sense.

[StanMarsh]

 

The helicopter had a point- besides just flying around in the sky and then going back to the airport, there was nothing you could do with those jumbo jets. Storywise, Niko has flown a helicopter before but not to my knowledge a jet.

There is also the issues of how certain accidents involving jet planes in a NYC-based environment may be perceived by the media.

I am honestly not trying to be a jerk, I just still don't quite understand what 'point' the helicopters had other than self determined point of making some missions dependent on them.

 

Having Niko's backround explain his proficiency with a helicopter is arbitrary.

 

I sort of agree with the NYC/plane crash thing, but it still makes very little sense in terms of the other violence that appears in this game. Not that I'm accusing the 'media' of making sense.

The attack helicopter's point was to actually be a foe that you had a hard time killing. That is the only point and, as I've said before, I don't think it should be in the game.

 

His background MAY be arbitrary, but whether it is or not it does make the helicopters more believable than planes.

 

The media doesn't make sense. Boo them.

[Tony Mozzarelli 80]

Yes but again this is another thing that detracts from the realism, and that

doesn't change the fact that the attack helicopter doesn't really serve much

of a purpose besides fun. and what about the vigilante missions? are they

realistic? or fun?. and i noticed in another thread you say you're indifferent

to paramedic missions and firefighting, but it bothers you that we might use

a flamethrower?

Realism wise, I think the fact that he has never flown a plane(my last point in my last post) is a good enough reason as to why he can't fly a plane.

Paramedic/Firefighter missions- All you're doing is responding to calls to fires and for medical attention. All you need to do there is get in the vehicle to hear it on the radio. I'm indifferent because the reasoning is solid enough and only requires one thing- you jack the appropiate vehicle.

Now, the flamethrower? Like I said earlier, you could almost explain the flamethrower well enough so if it was in there I wouldn't have to big a problem as long as the tank went kabloomy when a bullet hit it. I've realised over the course of the argument that my real problem is with the minigun, but they were both lumped in together at first.

The vigilante missions are explained in the mission where you are introduced to them.

but Niko could easily still have military contacts, and be able to get hold of crazy weapons.

Ok i know this requires a leap of imagination, but no more so than the fact that Niko might

fight fires and be a paramedic, i mean after all we can aquire RPG launchers so why not?

does it not also bother you that Niko is whinging about being broke with a cool million

in his sky rocket? does it not bother you that hospitals will fix you up for a GSW and not

bother informing the police? does it not bother you that Niko is always lecturing people about

killing people, and then go running down old ladies in the park?

these are of course only rhetorical questions, my real question is where does it end?

how many more features should be dropped for realism?

[wayninja]

The attack helicopter's point was to actually be a foe that you had a hard time killing. That is the only point and, as I've said before, I don't think it should be in the game.

 

His background MAY be arbitrary, but whether it is or not it does make the helicopters more believable than planes.

 

The media doesn't make sense. Boo them.

So then, why is the attack heli in the game?

 

What do you mean his background MAY be arbitrary? He is a fictional character...every thing about him is arbitrary. They could have said he was a tank/plane pilot in the army and included tanks/planes, they just didn't.

 

Yes, boo the media, but unless I hear R* say you can't fly a plane because of 9/11, I will remain skeptical.