Give Me Liberty [Update Concept]

[theNGclan]

 

Having Liberty City sounds good, but realistically, it'll never happen. Games don't have unlimited memory. OnO

What are you talking about?

 

You do realise games can handle a million GTAV maps, right?

 

It's called LOD and draw distance. Not everything is loaded in at once. The game only loads what's around you. Liberty City can be added a billion times and the game would not crash any more than it does now.

 

Trust me, this update is entirely possible, from a hardware standpoint and developer time and assets standpoint.

 

Nope. Games have Identification limits. Overload that and you're done.

[Guest]

 

Every single car handles the same in GTAV. There's no difference aside from acceleration and top speed. Entity vs Adder? The Entity will win because it's faster. Suspension and drivetrain means f*ck all.

Have you actually played GTA V and driven these cars? The Entity isn't the King of the superclass because of speed or acceleration, but down to its traction.

 

Entity has better acceleration and grip. Adder has higher top speed.

 

Oh wow, so deep. The Entity is clearly better.

 

 

In GTA4, every car had its advantages and disadvantages.

 

You can use a Turismo for its light handling, you can use an Infernus for its top speed, a Comet for its acceleration, a Super GT for a decent balance.

 

You ever see people in Voltics and Comets dominating races in V? Of course not, because the handling is dumbed down so much the difference widens to the point it's useless using those cars. People say "oh but the carbonizzare oversteers"

Yeah, so what? GTAV's handling means you can correc tthat oversteer. a three year old can do it.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: NgClan, what do you mean by identification limit?

 

I do know that GTA4's engine couldn't fit GTA5's map, but with GTAV they could easily fit LC in. North Yankton was to the side, I'm sure that LC could fit in either far away like that, or way above the map height limits.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[gizmonomono]

 

That's exaggerating. No, you cannot go through a corner full speed.

You are explaining driving like it's our first encounter with a car. It's called a racing line, and you didn't invent it, so enough with the preaching, ok?

What bothers me about this video is how the cars moves when he looses control. It's just turning around a vertical axis like the road is icy. Not to mention, that's a sports car and yet, it wobbles on the road like jello. Also, a car like that doesn't lean so much when cornering. Which is why I prefer driving in V. The cars have different suspensions, different drivetrain, and even different types of engines (electrical, gas).

 

No, he crashed, that's why he spun out. He doesn't just magically regain control like in GTAV.

 

Every single car handles the same in GTAV. There's no difference aside from acceleration and top speed. Entity vs Adder? The Entity will win because it's faster. Suspension and drivetrain means f*ck all.

 

In GTA IV, every car had unique traits. a Blista Compact turns corners better and faster than anything else. The Infernus was the fastest, yet the Turismo was better around corners. I could use a Super GT or Turismo, and beat Comets and Infernuses because the game is based around driver preference and skill, neither of these things appear in V.

 

If you take a Turismo offroad, you're gonna fail compared to someone who takes a Rancher. In V, the person with thesupercar can climb up mountains with virtually no problems. No losing control, nothing. The person with the Rancher struggles to climb up a simple slope. bcaus GTAV's driving doesn't account for suspension, power, oversteer understeer, none of that. It just thinks "yep this car's faster, it climbs up walls."

 

You're criticising IV for being unrealistic, while being in favour of GTAV.

 

GTA4's driving is simcade. It takes elements of real life but keeps a fun arcade experience. You can pull off things in IV you couldn't in real life, but you still have to think about things that you would in real life.

 

GTAV just treats cars as some annoyance to get from A to B. It doesn't include it in the actual gameplay like GTA4 did. You can't criticse GTA4 driving for being unrealistic while you're in favour of supercars driving up mountains, Issis staying completely still while a Patriot smashed into them, taking corners without braking, and cars that look and handle like Hot Wheels.

 

Magically? Really? So if I spin out in GTA V, all I have to do is let the car correct itself? That's bullsh*t. Just like in IV, it's easy to regain control, but it depends on the car.

 

Long story short, neither game is realistic, as I've said many times. But if I'm gonna choose between the wobbly slow driving and driving up mountains, I choose the latter. I don't like my cars sliding and leaning that much. And I have many hours in Gran turismo, so I know a thing or two about this: GTA V is closer to it that IV.

And again, you're exaggerating. Cars in V DO NOT go through a corner at top speed. Show me proof of that, then we'll talk.

[Guest]

^ With IV, you can either TRY to regain control while maintaining your speed, but likely mess up. Or you can slow down, pay the price for messing up and carry on.

 

Regaining control in V is simply letting go of the accelerator for a split second. You can get back up to top speed in half a second, so there's no punishment. I don't want to earn first place and have some kid in an Adder zoom past because the game held his hand. Where's the competition?

[xXepicjasaXx]

liberty city could be added as a server of its own, players go to the aiport and a cutscene thinh shows you getting on a plane and it entering liberty city and that could show whilst you go to a liberty city server and you spawn outside the airport

[Coin]

 

Entity has better acceleration and grip. Adder has higher top speed.

 

Oh wow, so deep. The Entity is clearly better.

 

 

In GTA4, every car had its advantages and disadvantages.

 

You can use a Turismo for its light handling, you can use an Infernus for its top speed, a Comet for its acceleration, a Super GT for a decent balance.

 

You ever see people in Voltics and Comets dominating races in V? Of course not, because the handling is dumbed down so much the difference widens to the point it's useless using those cars. People say "oh but the carbonizzare oversteers"

Yeah, so what? GTAV's handling means you can correc tthat oversteer. a three year old can do it.

 

 

 

What exactly is your point? Because all it seems here is that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course the Adder only excels on tracks where it can utilise its top speed advantage. Captain obvious stuff right there.

 

Driving in GTA IV was easy. As easy, if not easier than it is in V.

 

Next you'll be telling me that suspension has no effect in V.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Insert-Coin-To-Continue

[gizmonomono]

^ With IV, you can either TRY to regain control while maintaining your speed, but likely mess up. Or you can slow down, pay the price for messing up and carry on.

 

Regaining control in V is simply letting go of the accelerator for a split second. You can get back up to top speed in half a second, so there's no punishment. I don't want to earn first place and have some kid in an Adder zoom past because the game held his hand. Where's the competition?

Every argument you have made has been about supercars. You know there are other classes as well? A supercar is supposed to be fast. In IV, what you get instead is just looks, and a little bit of power, but the traction and suspension remain the same. There is just more variety in cars in GTA V.

But I can see we're not going to see eye to eye on this, so you enjoy what you love, and I'll do the same.

[manicmechanic71]

With driving skill maxed you ought to be able to control a skid! Ricers manage it when they're attempting to drift. No car I've ever driven handles as badly as gta 4 cars, and I've driven some sh*te cars in my quarter century of driving!

[Silnev]

^ With IV, you can either TRY to regain control while maintaining your speed, but likely mess up. Or you can slow down, pay the price for messing up and carry on.

 

Regaining control in V is simply letting go of the accelerator for a split second. You can get back up to top speed in half a second, so there's no punishment. I don't want to earn first place and have some kid in an Adder zoom past because the game held his hand. Where's the competition?

 

That just means you suck. The competition is right there! Beating the kid with aides. There is nothing more satisfying then beating a lobby of Adders, Zentornos, Entitys and Turismos in my Infernus.

[Maxxeine]

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

The driving sucked? No, it didn't. Driving took skill, and wasn't something you could learn overnight. If you knew how to drive at full speed, and drift, you could dominate; and it was fun.

 

Also, Liberty City has so many different locations that I would love to revisit again in GTAO with the updated graphics.

 

Also, GTA IV.

[Silnev]

 

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

The driving sucked? No, it didn't. Driving took skill, and wasn't something you could learn overnight. If you knew how to drive at full speed, and drift, you could dominate; and it was fun.

 

Also, Liberty City has so many different locations that I would love to revisit again in GTAO with the updated graphics.

 

Also, GTA IV.

 

 

No it didn't take skill. It took as much skill as the driving in San Andreas or even V. Secondly you can't "drift" in GTA IV you can powerslide but actual counter-steering drifting is pretty much impossible. Thirdly it might be fun in an online lobby at star junction but it's not so fun when I'm trying to escape the cops in an APC only to hit the curb and get stuck on my side since in IV you couldn't roll your car back over.

 

As for the map itself I wouldn't mind seeing some of Liberty implemented but just not how most people want it. I'd rather Rockstar take like the landmass of Algonquin and turn that into a new city (San Fierro) then combine Alderny and Broker/Dukes to create Las Ventarus. As opposed to just carrying over GTA IV's entire map. So maybe we'd have something like this:

 

 

Yes it's a bit big but this is what I mean. Instead of just bringing back Liberty City why not rehash it into two new islands. Algonquin, Colony Island, Happiness Island and two Bohans make up San Fierro and Flint County. While Broker, Dukes, Charge Island and Alderny make up Tierra Robada, Bone County and Las Ventarus.

 

As opposed to something like this.

 

 

Just want diversity. Keep GTA IV unique with it's Liberty City but just use some of the assets to create new cities for V.

[Testarossa]

Oh my god yes.

 

E-mail it to Rockstar now.

[ten-a-penny]

 

Having Liberty City sounds good, but realistically, it'll never happen. Games don't have unlimited memory. OnO

What are you talking about?

 

You do realise games can handle a million GTAV maps, right?

 

It's called LOD and draw distance. Not everything is loaded in at once. The game only loads what's around you. Liberty City can be added a billion times and the game would not crash any more than it does now.

 

Trust me, this update is entirely possible, from a hardware standpoint and developer time and assets standpoint.

Right.....

 

 

 

Until there's at least 16 people scattered around the damn map.

 

 

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

 

I disagree. I think GTA IV's driving physics were much better than GTA V's, albeit with some extreme body roll that GTA IV had. People complain about GTA IV's driving physics because they cannot drive worth sh*t in GTA IV.

I'm good at driving in GTA:IV and I have the freedom to say; It sucked.

[theNGclan]

Lazyboy, every engine have an identification limit. If it is told to call for too many models at any point (and I'm not talking about streaming memory), it will crash.

[CIAagent]

i have a dream ..

[lazyassedlover]

I don't like your idea

The only thing I like it the idea of being able to visit LC in a sort of separate lobby type deal, that's it

sorry

Oh and I went back to GTA4 just yesterday, the driving is lame COMPARED to GTA 5, I was good at it, cos I had to be

 

 

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

The driving sucked? No, it didn't. Driving took skill, and wasn't something you could learn overnight. If you knew how to drive at full speed, and drift, you could dominate; and it was fun.

 

Also, Liberty City has so many different locations that I would love to revisit again in GTAO with the updated graphics.

 

Also, GTA IV.

 

 

No it didn't take skill. It took as much skill as the driving in San Andreas or even V. Secondly you can't "drift" in GTA IV you can powerslide but actual counter-steering drifting is pretty much impossible. Thirdly it might be fun in an online lobby at star junction but it's not so fun when I'm trying to escape the cops in an APC only to hit the curb and get stuck on my side since in IV you couldn't roll your car back over.

 

As for the map itself I wouldn't mind seeing some of Liberty implemented but just not how most people want it. I'd rather Rockstar take like the landmass of Algonquin and turn that into a new city (San Fierro) then combine Alderny and Broker/Dukes to create Las Ventarus. As opposed to just carrying over GTA IV's entire map. So maybe we'd have something like this:

 

 

Yes it's a bit big but this is what I mean. Instead of just bringing back Liberty City why not rehash it into two new islands. Algonquin, Colony Island, Happiness Island and two Bohans make up San Fierro and Flint County. While Broker, Dukes, Charge Island and Alderny make up Tierra Robada, Bone County and Las Ventarus.

 

As opposed to something like this.

 

 

Just want diversity. Keep GTA IV unique with it's Liberty City but just use some of the assets to create new cities for V.

 

Like your idea but LC is that that big in comparison to LS lool, its way smaller, nice idea tho

I would LOVE to drive along them super long bridges

Edited August 13, 2014 by lazyassedlover

[007_eleven]

Liberty City will never be rehashed in GTA V. It's too much effort and will look extremely lazy to have the city identical to what it was 5/6 years ago. I'd rather they fleshed out the interiors and foliage of LS and Blaine County on current gen.

[ten-a-penny]

Liberty City will never be rehashed in GTA V. It's too much effort and will look extremely lazy to have the city identical to what it was 5/6 years ago. I'd rather they fleshed out the interiors and foliage of LS and Blaine County on current gen.

Yes!

Please Rockstar, please! Make this happen! The interiors shouldn't take as much to load. I've used the Content Creator trick to get in some interiors, it was running 100% smooth with 0 problems.

 

 

Unlike having a completely new map, which was about 5-6 years ago. Want LC? Go play GTA:LC, GTA:LCS, GTA:Chinatown Wars or GTA:IV.

[US Marshal1911]

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

What's not to get? The fact that you can't reason logic well? I think a lot of people would like to maybe, I don't know, fly fighter jets through skyscrapers and revisit memories with better graphics. Sure, YOU, can go play gta4 and not have planes, customization on clothes and cars, new apartments, better stories, and such. Good day

[EaglesFan1825]

Los Santos sucks. I like this idea.

[US Marshal1911]

"All cars rolled way too much (with the manana or the virgo it made sense since they're land-barges but when the limo, apc and the comet move in that fashion then there is a problem) and they were all weightless (tell me why I should be able to roll the APC because I hit a curb?). "

 

Um, the APC is top heavy, you bet your ass you'll roll over if you hit a curb going 30

[Silnev]

 

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

What's not to get? The fact that you can't reason logic well? I think a lot of people would like to maybe, I don't know, fly fighter jets through skyscrapers and revisit memories with better graphics. Sure, YOU, can go play gta4 and not have planes, customization on clothes and cars, new apartments, better stories, and such. Good day

 

 

Yes I will play IV without those features because...

 

Unlike you I actually enjoy IV because it doesn't need all those gimmicks because it is a solid game through and through.

 

"All cars rolled way too much (with the manana or the virgo it made sense since they're land-barges but when the limo, apc and the comet move in that fashion then there is a problem) and they were all weightless (tell me why I should be able to roll the APC because I hit a curb?). "

 

Um, the APC is top heavy, you bet your ass you'll roll over if you hit a curb going 30

 

I wish I was finishing the mission "Caught with your pants down" and I was pulling into the construction yard doing about 5-10ish when I clipped the curb and rolled it. But that's beside the point if all you took from my comment was my confusion about how I rolled the apc then obviously you're just a bit of a smart ass.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Silnev

[Silnev]

 

 

Like your idea but LC is that that big in comparison to LS lool, its way smaller, nice idea tho

I would LOVE to drive along them super long bridges

 

It's not meant to be to scale it was too just get the point across. Still even the size of Alderny is quite good compared to LS, and in the end I think what people really want is just some new areas to explore and f*ck around in. I just feel that Liberty City shouldn't be it.

[don ovdi' island]

TBH, in GTAIV cars seemed a bit finicky but i believe that trucks and SUV's were more realistically top-heavy in GTA IV. Driving the escalade at high speeds and jerking the wheel around could almost or could flip you over.

In GTA V, it seems almost impossible to flip over any of the light-trucks or SUVs, which is unrealistic and really IMO it's not as fun. The Escalade seems like its glued to the ground, and virtually impossible to flip over strictly because of turning. There should have been a better balance of GTA IV's driving mixed with GTA V. GTA IV seemed quite over exaggerated when it came to the understeer of certain vehicles. I know many sedans that could take sharp emergency turns WAY better than most vehicles even sports cars could in GTA IV. HOWEVER, GTA V is really tuned down and arcadey, cars seem weightless while trucks and SUV's have no type of top heavy, and seem really stuck to the ground.

I used to drive a huge early 90's lincoln, and that car was a tank and was sealed to ground - i could take any turn at any speed (had a good turning radius for being a land-yatch) , "drift" and hyrdoplain in the water, etc, and it would spin out at most; never was bouncy in the sense that it would flip. Now, i drive an SUV, and on the highway jerking the wheel a bit or in corners is where you can really feel the weight transfer. I know the truck (it's an SUV but i call it a truck) would flip if i aggressively tried to make a turn at a high speed, thats the way the SUV's should handle in GTA V.

Instead of re-vamping the whole driving system, they should have tweaked the one from IV. But do I want to see LC again? No.

[Irish O'African]

 

 

Having Liberty City sounds good, but realistically, it'll never happen. Games don't have unlimited memory. OnO

What are you talking about?

 

You do realise games can handle a million GTAV maps, right?

 

It's called LOD and draw distance. Not everything is loaded in at once. The game only loads what's around you. Liberty City can be added a billion times and the game would not crash any more than it does now.

 

Trust me, this update is entirely possible, from a hardware standpoint and developer time and assets standpoint.

Right.....

 

 

 

Until there's at least 16 people scattered around the damn map.

 

 

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

 

I disagree. I think GTA IV's driving physics were much better than GTA V's, albeit with some extreme body roll that GTA IV had. People complain about GTA IV's driving physics because they cannot drive worth sh*t in GTA IV.

I'm good at driving in GTA:IV and I have the freedom to say; It sucked.

 

 

If you say so. I'm sure you are.

[MythicRare]

I would rather have a By The Lake update and get Chicago.

[ten-a-penny]

 

 

 

 

Having Liberty City sounds good, but realistically, it'll never happen. Games don't have unlimited memory. OnO

What are you talking about?

 

You do realise games can handle a million GTAV maps, right?

 

It's called LOD and draw distance. Not everything is loaded in at once. The game only loads what's around you. Liberty City can be added a billion times and the game would not crash any more than it does now.

 

Trust me, this update is entirely possible, from a hardware standpoint and developer time and assets standpoint.

Right.....

 

 

 

Until there's at least 16 people scattered around the damn map.

 

 

What is everyone's obsession with having Liberty City in GTA Online?

 

I don't get it, if you want to go to Liberty City then play GTA IV. I mean I get wanting stuff from IV implemented into online (vehicles, guns, clothes, contacts ect.) but I don't get what the addition of the whole map would achieve. Hell I remember playing free roam in IV and most of time people were at just the Airport. I don't get why people think in Online where the majority of players stay within Los Santos that adding Liberty City would change up gameplay.

 

I just don't see R* implementing Liberty City just so one out of 16 players can free-roam it and be all nostalgic about it.

 

Also the driving mechanics in IV sucked. So why the hell would anyone want those back.

 

I disagree. I think GTA IV's driving physics were much better than GTA V's, albeit with some extreme body roll that GTA IV had. People complain about GTA IV's driving physics because they cannot drive worth sh*t in GTA IV.

I'm good at driving in GTA:IV and I have the freedom to say; It sucked.

 

 

If you say so. I'm sure you are.

My God, do you lack braincells to not cut the goddamn quotes, and only keep the quote you want to reply to, or even put the f*cking thing in a spoiler, instead of leaving there like a retard?

 

Yes. IV driving sucked. Problem? Learn to accept opinions.

 

I would rather have a By The Lake update and get Chicago.

Somebody mentioned Chicago?

[manicmechanic71]

"All cars rolled way too much (with the manana or the virgo it made sense since they're land-barges but when the limo, apc and the comet move in that fashion then there is a problem) and they were all weightless (tell me why I should be able to roll the APC because I hit a curb?). "

 

Um, the APC is top heavy, you bet your ass you'll roll over if you hit a curb going 30

An off road military vehicle won't just ride up the kerb?

Genuine question, not sarcasm

[don ovdi' island]

 

"All cars rolled way too much (with the manana or the virgo it made sense since they're land-barges but when the limo, apc and the comet move in that fashion then there is a problem) and they were all weightless (tell me why I should be able to roll the APC because I hit a curb?). "

 

Um, the APC is top heavy, you bet your ass you'll roll over if you hit a curb going 30

An off road military vehicle won't just ride up the kerb?

Genuine question, not sarcasm

 

Not only that but it probably weighs at least 6000 lbs. Top heavy or not, it's not an SUV, it's a fully armored mini-tank.

 

And the GTA:IV's driving took So MuCh SkILLzZ argument is dumb, all you needed to do was slow down or hand break in the turns to complete them. The only people who thought it was hard to master GTA IV's driving were people who didnt understand this concept. It wasn't hard at all. And car's IRL don't understeer as terribly as cars did in GTA IV.

[ten-a-penny]

 

"All cars rolled way too much (with the manana or the virgo it made sense since they're land-barges but when the limo, apc and the comet move in that fashion then there is a problem) and they were all weightless (tell me why I should be able to roll the APC because I hit a curb?). "

 

Um, the APC is top heavy, you bet your ass you'll roll over if you hit a curb going 30

An off road military vehicle won't just ride up the kerb?

Genuine question, not sarcasm

A tank/Mini-Tank can smash a small tree let alone go over a curb.

 

@Above:

The only thing that is required in IV's driving was getting the hang of it. After it, its a charm.

 

When I first played IV I smashed into everything. After a while I became good with the driving. Nowadays I even became better, now the only thing that pisses me off is the bike handling. You shouldn't tilt yourself all the way down just to turn.