Plane Flight in GTA V

[albertson100]

Note: I am not giving a straight yes or no on this subject, because I do not have a set opinion. I think there are distinct pros and cons of adding the ability to fly a plane in GTA V. Also, this is an opinion thread. Please, no hate replies. Let's be civil and keep this as clean as possible. Thank You.

 

Why TO add plane flight in GTA:

 

1. It would create opportunities for some very interesting, and no doubt, entertaining missions.

2. It would add some more open play. (For example, if GTA V consisted of multiple cities, you could fly from city to city. This would, for me be somewhat boring, but still a thought.)

 

Why NOT TO add plane flight in GTA:

 

1. GTA is already, for some, a controversial game. Some deeming the murders and extreme language in some of the games (Yusuf Amir would be a good example) adding plane flight may offend some. Here's why:

 

The previous games have had buildings. Some tall ones as well. Liberty City is a good example. Half of Algonquin and parts of Dukes have VERY tall buildings. And I myself have crashed my helicopters from moving to fast, too low, in some helicopter missions. Now, for some, the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon are still fresh in people's minds. Adding plane flights also brings the ability to crash your plane... ANYWHERE. So this is my point. Adding more controversy to GTA may hurt the title and even Rockstar itself.

 

Therefore, this may be a risky move to make. Giving player the ability to attack innocent civilians and blow yourself up running into a building head on may cause a rough patch for GTA and Rockstar.

 

The Truth:

 

Controversy is only temporary. People will be pissed for a couple of months, then they will move on to the newest scandal, and all will be healed. But, with this economic climate, with people NOT buying their games for a few months could make a HUGE difference.

 

I do not work for Rockstar, I do not know if they are thinking of adding plane flight to the next GTA. I am just seeing a lot of people suggesting plane flight on this forum and wanted to see what your thoughts were.

 

So fellow GTA lovers; thoughts?

 

Thank You,

 

albertson100

[albertson100]

I understand this is a long thread, but please take 5 minutes to read it. 7 views and no responses.

[AussieDude]

MW2 had that mission where you ran through an airport and gunned down Citizens.. GTA has never been that far and its 10x more controversial.. I dont see why we cant have Planes because of Something that happened nearly 10 years ago now.

[xNewtype Acex]

Why NOT TO add plane flight in GTA:

 

1. GTA is already, for some, a controversial game. Some deeming the murders and extreme language in some of the games (Yusuf Amir would be a good example) adding plane flight may offend some. Here's why:

 

The previous games have had buildings. Some tall ones as well. Liberty City is a good example. Half of Algonquin and parts of Dukes have VERY tall buildings. And I myself have crashed my helicopters from moving to fast, too low, in some helicopter missions. Now, for some, the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon are still fresh in people's minds. Adding plane flights also brings the ability to crash your plane... ANYWHERE. So this is my point. Adding more controversy to GTA may hurt the title and even Rockstar itself.

 

Therefore, this may be a risky move to make. Giving player the ability to attack innocent civilians and blow yourself up running into a building head on may cause a rough patch for GTA and Rockstar.

 

Aww come on, still with this? There have been tons of free-roam games that have planes.

 

GTA VC

GTA SA

Saints Row 2

Mercenaries 2 didn't have planes but you could level entire buildings.

Saints Row 2

Just Cause 1 & 2 hell you could surf a plane into a building.

 

IMO, the 9/11 controversy thing is not longer a valid point of debate, so I crashed a plane into a building, so what? Big deal, it's a video game with planes and buildings, I understand 9/11 was a tragedy but, hell, give me a rocket launcher in GTA IV and I could create an even bigger tragedy in less than 5 minutes.

 

*Disclaimer: I do not endorse acts of terrorism and I understand 9/11 was a tragedy, and it shouldn't be taken lightly, but I don't think that should stop R* from adding planes into the next game.

[XTREME0235]

@Albertson.

I have just come to the sense that you seem to have more points about NOT having planes in the next GTA title then you do to HAVE planes in the next GTA.

 

This somewhat says to me that you would prefer not to have planes in the next GTA more so than you would like them. The point is, video games are meant for fun and enjoyment to a certain extent of course. If people decide not to like a game or just down right hate on it because it has a feature in it that doesn't appeal to them, then so what don't buy it and just focus on another issue rather than trying to gain attention.

 

Sure opinions are rightfully meant to be heard, but when you start rambling on about it and making yourself out to be a complete dickhead, then no one will listen to you. R* shouldn't have to not add a feature into a game just because one person or group feels that it shouldn't be implemented.

 

That is my opinion, and i can assure you that i am not just referring to planes in my 2c worth, i am merely referring to new/past features in general.

 

XTREME0235.

[K^2]

There is absolutely no excuse not to have fixed wing aircraft in the next game. A Cessna 152 (Plane that Dodo is based off) is slower, cheaper, easier to fly, and causes less damage to building on collision than a Bell 206L Long Ranger (IV's Maverick). I'm not even talking about UH-60 Blackhawk (Annihilator).

 

A helicopter might have more utility to most players in IV. So I understand that there are more people that would be upset about lack of helicopters than planes. But as far as actual reasons to not have planes in general, every single one of these can be applied to helicopters that are already in GTA IV.

 

Arguments against large aircraft, like a Boeing 737 (SA's AT400), have some validity. I see them as weak arguments, but they are arguable. Arguments against airplanes in general are based on nothing but ignorance. If you think you have one that doesn't apply to helicopters as well, you simply don't understand something about either airplanes or helicopters. But give me your best shot.

[Tyler]

I'll try...

 

The planes wouldn't be as versatile in Liberty City as helicopters because of the simple fact that helicopters are easier it land vertically than a plane. Of course I know you know this, so I will also point out there are only two landing strips, inside of one airport in all of Liberty City. Now, if they would have added an airstrip in Alderrney then I would prefer planes in IV, but since they didn't I don't care.

 

As for the next GTA, if it doesn't have planes then I expect less than airports (Preferably none, so that I don't constantly feel like R* is f*cking screwing with me).

 

Hope I answered thoroughly enough K^2.

[K^2]

There are several locations around IV's LC where you can land and take off from afterwards. If you just want to land, and don't care about taking off afterwards, or collateral damage to cars and people, you can land on any street. And if you use the parachute, your options are completely open.

 

The problem only arises when you want to get to some location, land there, then go somewhere else. Naturally, you want a helicopter for that. But if you actually count that as an argument against airplanes, then the boats should go long before planes do.

 

As I said earlier, this is merely an argument on utility. It's a good reason for why helicopters are viewed as more important. And that's fine. But it is not an argument to say that the planes should not be in the game. Not even close.

[Wenis IV]

Planes are a must and Im confident they will be in V based solely off of the feedback from the community about there being no planes in IV. That is if rockstar listened to the community. WE WANT PLANES. If you don't want planes don't fly them simple as that. Don't debate against planes because it just ruins it for us that want them.

[Ronnyboy]

There is absolutely no excuse not to have fixed wing aircraft in the next game. A Cessna 152 (Plane that Dodo is based off) is slower, cheaper, easier to fly, and causes less damage to building on collision than a Bell 206L Long Ranger (IV's Maverick). I'm not even talking about UH-60 Blackhawk (Annihilator).

 

We had the chance to fly a large Commercial Airliner into the tall buildings of SA, so I guess that makes your argument even more stern.

[K^2]

There are people who say, "It wasn't New York." That one would definitely be smoke with a new location. But there is also a camp of, "GTA IV is more realistic, so it's a bigger deal." Which is really a sand castle of an argument, but yes, I suppose, it would offend a tiny bit more people than the one in SA. So as weak as it is, it is an argument at least. Anyone who opposes planes in general doesn't have even that.

[albertson100]

@Albertson.

I have just come to the sense that you seem to have more points about NOT having planes in the next GTA title then you do to HAVE planes in the next GTA.

There are actually less points with why not to add it. I just added some more detail to them so there would not be any confusion. The new paragraphs are just to make the article visually easier to read.

 

 

And just to close this argument. I just wanted to see what a majority of people thought as to adding free plane flight on the next GTA. I only post debates that I do not have a set opinion on. I understand what you are all saying. I do not oppose planes in the next game. Yes, that would be extremely entertaining. I just wanted to see the opinion of the people in this forum.

[Bullit1990]

 

Giving player the ability to attack innocent civilians and blow yourself up running into a building head on may cause a rough patch for GTA and Rockstar.

 

Isn't that someting everyone does is gta? Only then with cars and grenade launchers and handgrenades.

and the part about attacking innocent civilians.. well ehh i'm quite the sadistic bastard running around town shooting knifing and hitting people

and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one who does that.. more like everyone but hey that's one of the reasons why i like gta the freedom of being a bastard is there

so why not be one?

[wesley123]

why dont we remove cars too? you can drive into buildings with them...

[unknowngtafan]

9/11 is a good reason not to have planes in liberty as its based off new york.

 

If its in any other place, nobody should care

 

And nobody is not going to by GTA because of a controversy over planes, hell its basically free marketing for R*

[Nativedeem]

 

9/11 is a good reason not to have planes in liberty as its based off new york.

 

If its in any other place, nobody should care

 

And nobody is not going to by GTA because of a controversy over planes, hell its basically free marketing for R*

i dont think it really matters if it was new york city. people need to stop bitching about something that happened nearly a decade ago. sure it was a evil thing, people never forget that but they seem to forget they invaded the wrong country and destroyed it, killing more innocents than in 9/11. but lets not focus on politics, its a game about crime drama, not c-span.

[CryptReaperDorian]

One thing that was very controversial with GTA SA was Hot Coffee, but now it seems there isn't much opposition to sexual content in GTA games. R* got a little bitching from nudity in TLAD, but that was not much. TBOGT had a lot of sex (that was censored), and Red Dead Redemption had a nude scene. Nobody really spoke up about those. My point is it seems as if people are accepting video games as just that now. Besides, I can't believe that not everybody knows controversy sells. That is one of the major keys of success for GTA.

 

Also, about planes, there was no excuse to not have a Skimmer in GTA IV. Boats were too much of a hassle to get anywhere, and the map had more than enough landing area for a Skimmer. Even with the parachute added in TBOGT, a plane that lands on the ground could of been added. In that case, I think most people would ditch the plane in mid-air anyways.

[Kwandilibro]

 

One thing that was very controversial with GTA SA was Hot Coffee, but now it seems there isn't much opposition to sexual content in GTA games.  R* got a little bitching from nudity in TLAD, but that was not much.  TBOGT had a lot of sex (that was censored), and Red Dead Redemption had a nude scene.  Nobody really spoke up about those.  My point is it seems as if people are accepting video games as just that now.  Besides, I can't believe that not everybody knows controversy sells.  That is one of the major keys of success for GTA.

 

Also, about planes, there was no excuse to not have a Skimmer in GTA IV.  Boats were too much of a hassle to get anywhere, and the map had more than enough landing area for a Skimmer.  Even with the parachute added in TBOGT, a plane that lands on the ground could of been added.  In that case, I think most people would ditch the plane in mid-air anyways.

I could never figure out why Hot Coffee was such a problem. I mean it's just a mod, most people don't even know how to install a mod, and even more people only play games on console, making it inaccessible. It's not like R* left a big sex minigame with full nudity for us to use CJ's dick on Denise.

 

All this controversy is bullsh*t. The f*cking public, those bitch ass lawyers and such, they always whine on and on about bad things in video games. Just like what they did with rap. If you don't f*cking like it, don't f*cking buy it. Nobody put a gun to your head and said, "buy this game or I kill you". But somebody's always got to be the big noble one.

 

I don't see why planes can't be in GTA, unless the engine can't handle it or some other technical problems. I don't see why we can't smoke, drink, and fly a plane into a government building if we feel like it. The only true thing to keep out is fully nude sex. Leave that to pornstars, they get paid for it. But even with that, it's not like we've never seen a pair of titties before. But seriously, these little minor things R* takes out to please lawyers, the sh*t needs to stop. f*ck what the damn mothers think. f*ck what the damn lawyers, or anyone else thinks. Dammit, let's get high and kill some old men!

 

Now on a more serious note, I'm really hoping R* gives us planes in the neXt GTA, especially with a large map. I mean, VC was the smallest of all, and we could fly planes in VC.

[QwertyAAA]

Actually, III-LC was somewhat smaller than VC, but even it had the Dodo! Not much of a plane, though.

[K^2]

Dodo was great for escaping police or other chases, though, especially if you found yourself on 3rd island, and needed to get somewhere on 2nd or 1st island. Getting to airport was generally a lot easier than getting to another island, and once there, grabbing a Dodo and taking to the sky was no trouble at all. Then you can go wherever you need to go without anyone bothering you.

[Racecarlock]

Why not have airplanes in? 9/11 is a crap argument and frankly those who don't like them don't have to use them. It's just another mode of transportation. Hell, while we're at it, why not have arguments against cars, bikes, boats, and helicopters too? Why not have the protagonist walk around the whole city at a speed of two inches per decade? (Gentlemen, that was a sarcastic remark.)

[A White CJ]

I say f*ck the media and it's controversies. Those jerkoffs make their money demonizing an industry just because it is easy pickings. You don't have to fly a plane into a building if you don't want to, so they can just shut the h*ll up. If you compare a game to real life, the ENTIRE game would be immoral: it's ABOUT crime.

[wesley123]

9/11 is a good reason not to have planes in liberty as its based off new york.

 

If its in any other place, nobody should care

 

And nobody is not going to by GTA because of a controversy over planes, hell its basically free marketing for R*

they are making jokes of terrorism in the whole game and then adding a plane is a problem? are you serious?

[scottp97]

I don't get why people are be offended by aviation in gta games rockstar dont decide weather people decide to go and crash them into buildings and anyway if you don't like the content of a game don't play it

[Bobby_Williams]

quote to why not to add flight: Thats why in GTA V you would have to go to pilot school and get a pilot license,you learn to fly,in real life they have tall buildings. and plus,some people would like to rp aircraft crashes,and terrorist attacks

[Nativedeem]

quote to why not to add flight: Thats why in GTA V you would have to go to pilot school and get a pilot license,you learn to fly,in real life they have tall buildings. and plus,some people would like to rp aircraft crashes,and terrorist attacks

what?

[GTAspotter]

take boats out too they are offensive because of what happened in titanic -.-

[Nativedeem]

take boats out too they are offensive because of what happened in titanic -.-

theres no icebergs in any gta. or huge drivable ships.

[Dear x Sergio]

 

I don't get why people are be offended by aviation in gta games rockstar dont decide weather people decide to go and crash them into buildings  and anyway if you don't like the content of a game don't play it

That's exactly right. Rockstar putting buildings, guns, and operable planes into a game doesn't mean they're facilitating 9/11 imitations. The player makes that happen. Rockstar could only be faulted if there is an actual mission or mini-game that either forces or instigates the player to crash their plane into a building.

[Brown Sugar]

MW2 had that mission where you ran through an airport and gunned down Citizens.. GTA has never been that far and its 10x more controversial.. I dont see why we cant have Planes because of Something that happened nearly 10 years ago now.

this is exactly right i dont know if its just me but i didnt hear of much controversy from this part in call of duty or maybe thats just because i have no interest in cod but if this mission were to be in gta, every annoying f*cking parent group would be out trying to sue rockstar and all of that sh*t because they were "offended" or they didnt want their kids to play that game when the answer is simple. Dont let your kids play the game if you think its wrong.

 

So i cant see much of a problem if rockstar did decide to add the ability to fly planes in gta, it would come under some acrutiny but it wouldnt affect the sales of the game or anything like that