Why Was The Map Revamped From Head To Toe? (Semi-Nitpicking)

[Smash Bandicoot 205]

Literally, all places in GTA 4 have been renamed from head-to-toe, only exception to this rule is Francis International Airport, which is now on the exact opposite side of the map, which I prefer, but even then, why revamp all the names? the island names being renamed is a good thing, but I still wish Alderney was sometimes referred to as "The Shoreside Vale", however, one rename that bothers me the most and I wish never happened was renaming Belleville Park to Middle park, just why. why did they rename Belleville Park into this soulless basic ass name? that would be like calling Francis International just "Liberty International Airport",

Other renames I'm bothered about are:

-renaming Hepburn Heights into "Boulevard"

-Renaming Portland into "Broker" (Slightly)

-Pretty much the entire map's naming feels uninspired

Speaking of which, why does this game not have planes? the "map is too small" excuse is a bunch of literal bullsh*t, Look at Vice City and 3, now tell me that "the map is too small for planes", hell, I feel like the skimmer would've worked perfectly, so what's the problem?

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

Probably just because the original LC was only VERY loosely based on NYC and actually doesn't resemble it all that much, and with IV they wanted a much more faithful recreation (which it is, if you know the geography of NYC and which areas of LC are based on which irl areas it's very nicely accurate, while still being its own thing). Making it more accurate meant changing it such a huge amount from the old LC they probably thought it was best to totally start again rather than even try to include some of the old areas.

 

With the place names most of the time the GTA IV LC uses names that are very close to or reflective of real life NYC place names (eg Broker/Brooklyn, Dukes/Queens, Hove Beach/Brighton Beach, East Island City/Long Island City, East Hook/Red Hook, Holland/Harlem, Purgatory/Hell's Kitchen, The Meat Quarter/The Meat Packing District, Chase Point/Hunts Point etc etc) whereas the original LC names are less related to real life places, so they wouldn't have fit very well.

 

I don't think the new names are uninspired at all, they're all interesting plays on the real life names (examples: New Jersey is called Alderney because New Jersey is named after the British Channel Island of Jersey, and another of the Channel Islands is called Alderney, Hell's Kitchen is called Purgatory because in Catholicism that's the name for a place between heaven and hell). Plus there's now street names which have some cool and interesting themes if you look into them. 

 

That is the reason for no planes. There's only one airport and nowhere else to fly to or land, and nobody travels the few miles between the boroughs of New York and nearby towns of New Jersey by plane, so there genuinely wasn't much use for them. In VC it's different because it's just a small seaplane that can land on water and it's believeable that people might use them for leisure around Miami. Around the city centre of NYC not so much. Yeah they still could've had them, but it's likely there were lots of things they had to leave out to make room for other things, and it's understandable they didn't judge them useful enough to be worth including.

Edited March 13 by billiejoearmstrong8

[ant_sh 25]

I think RAGE was not optimized enough to handle speed of jets on the hardware available at the time.

[Algonquin Assassin 51,103]

2 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Probably just because the original LC was only VERY loosely based on NYC and actually doesn't resemble it all that much, and with IV they wanted a much more faithful recreation (which it is, if you know the geography of NYC and which areas of LC are based on which irl areas it's very nicely accurate, while still being its own thing). Making it more accurate meant changing it such a huge amount from the old LC they probably thought it was best to totally start again rather than even try to include some of the old areas.

 

With the place names most of the time the GTA IV LC uses names that are very close to or reflective of real life NYC place names (eg Broker/Brooklyn, Dukes/Queens, Hove Beach/Brighton Beach, East Island City/Long Island City, East Hook/Red Hook, Holland/Harlem, Purgatory/Hell's Kitchen, The Meat Quarter/The Meat Packing District, Chase Point/Hunts Point etc etc) whereas the original LC names are less related to real life places, so they wouldn't have fit very well.

 

I don't think the new names are uninspired at all, they're all interesting plays on the real life names (examples: New Jersey is called Alderney because New Jersey is named after the British Channel Island of Jersey, and another of the Channel Islands is called Alderney, Hell's Kitchen is called Purgatory because in Catholicism that's the name for a place between heaven and hell). Plus there's now street names which have some cool and interesting themes if you look into them. 

 

That is the reason for no planes. There's only one airport and nowhere else to fly to or land, and nobody travels the few miles between the boroughs of New York and nearby towns of New Jersey by plane, so there genuinely wasn't much use for them. In VC it's different because it's just a small seaplane that can land on water and it's believeable that people might use them for leisure around Miami. Around the city centre of NYC not so much. Yeah they still could've had them, but it's likely there were lots of things they had to leave out to make room for other things, and it's understandable they didn't judge them useful enough to be worth including.

Nailed it. Clearly they wanted the names to parrot the real life counterparts in NYC/NJ and to distinguish the fact that this is NOT Liberty City from GTA III. I’m

not sure why they kept the Francis International name, but I suspect this may have something to do with 9/11 and the sensitivities still surrounding terrorism at the time and probably not wanting the airport name sounding too similar to the real thing. It’s J.F.K airport or something like that?

Anyway It’s no different to how GTA III came up with its own naming conventions to distinguish itself from GTA 1’s Liberty City and GTA V’s Los Santos compared to Los Santos in San Andreas. OG fans should know this.

 

As for planes meh. This is one of those criticisms I just can’t ever get on board with. Besides the map size I just think R* didn’t want to add them because they knew how useless they would’ve been for a map like GTA IV that’s entirely urban. Yes I know that GTA IV was meant to feature Liberty State and planes probably would’ve been included, but I’m talking about the map in its final form.

 

In GTA III the Dodo had its wings clipped on purpose making it pretty much impossible to fly and hardly a viable means of transport (funny that part always seems to get left out) and while Vice City had a seaplane it was very under-utilised and didn’t seem that important. It was simply there.

 

Infact I would understand if people would complain about not having parachutes instead of having to play TBOGT to get them or a greater selection of helicopters to choose from as that makes sense. However helicopters are better adapted for the environment and that’s why R* favoured them over planes.

 

Edited March 13 by Algonquin Assassin

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

1 hour ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

Nailed it. Clearly they wanted the names to parrot the real life counterparts in NYC/NJ and to distinguish the fact that this is NOT Liberty City from GTA III. I’m

not sure why they kept the Francis International name, but I suspect this may have something to do with 9/11 and the sensitivities still surrounding terrorism at the time and probably not wanting the airport name sounding too similar to the real thing. It’s J.F.K airport or something like that?

 

 

 

Apparently it's a mix of JFK (some parts of the design) and LaGuardia (other parts of the design and the location), both are in Queens so I guess they wanted to represent them both in one. I can't think of any way it relates to the real life names so I like to think they kept it as a single little throwback to the III map.

Edited March 13 by billiejoearmstrong8

[universetwisters 34,549]

Who the f*ck needs planes in GTA 4 there's just one airport where else you gonna fly to???????????????????????????

[DownInThePMs 2,582]

7 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

Who the f*ck needs planes in GTA 4 there's just one airport where else you gonna fly to???????????????????????????

Stilwater

[universetwisters 34,549]

Just now, DownInThePMs said:

Stilwater

 

NOOOOOOOO

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

I mean I get why people would want them, you could have some fun flying around in the them and landing back at the airport even if it isn't logical. But leaving them out probably allowed them to put some other cool and more logical and useful things in.

[Smash Bandicoot 205]

5 hours ago, Algonquin Assassin said:

Anyway It’s no different to how GTA III came up with its own naming conventions to distinguish itself from GTA 1’s Liberty City and GTA V’s Los Santos compared to Los Santos in San Andreas. OG fans should know this.

 

Except... no, even though I have not played GTA V, I know that it brought back alot of neighborhoods from SA and didn't rename them (Ganton, East Los Santos, etc).

[Ryo256 1,882]

3 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Who the f*ck needs planes in GTA 4 there's just one airport

Same is the case with GTA V? 🙃 (Pretty sure Sandy Shore Airfield is not an airport).

[universetwisters 34,549]

28 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

Same is the case with GTA V? 🙃 (Pretty sure Sandy Shore Airfield is not an airport).

 

I mean there's four places you can land a plane at:

 

-LSIA

-Sandy Shores airfield
-Grapeseed airfield

-Fort zancudo

 

 

[Ryo256 1,882]

1 minute ago, universetwisters said:

 

I mean there's four places you can land a plane at:

 

-LSIA

-Sandy Shores airfield
-Grapeseed airfield

-Fort zancudo

 

 

I noticed but do those count as airports? Considering GTA SA has an airport for each city and you can fast travel between them. 

[universetwisters 34,549]

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

I noticed but do those count as airports? Considering GTA SA has an airport for each city and you can fast travel between them. 

 

Yea but who said they have to be airports you have to fly to as opposed to general places around the map you can land a plane at

[Ryo256 1,882]

Just now, universetwisters said:

Yea but who said they have to be airports 

You did?

 

3 hours ago, universetwisters said:

Who the f*ck needs planes in GTA 4 there's just one airport where else you gonna fly to???????????????????????????

 

[universetwisters 34,549]

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

You did?

 

 

 

Let me put it in a way your incredibly literal mind can understand; who needs planes in GTA 4 where there's only two designated runways, directly intersecting one another, you can legally land a plane?

[Ryo256 1,882]

1 minute ago, universetwisters said:

 

Let me put it in a way your incredibly literal mind can understand; who needs planes in GTA 4 where there's only two designated runways, directly intersecting one another, you can legally land a plane?

Pretty sure you can't legally (or U.S law in GTA V says otherwise?) land your plane in those general areas you listed for GTA V like e.g Fort Zancudo. There is only one airport in GTA V where you can legally land.

That's why I referred to GTA SA, where you have different airports on which you can legally land and justify air travel. 

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

1 hour ago, Smash Bandicoot said:

Except... no, even though I have not played GTA V, I know that it brought back alot of neighborhoods from SA and didn't rename them (Ganton, East Los Santos, etc).

 

They did rename Ganton (it's called Davis in V) and East Los Santos isn't an actual name of an area on the map in V, just a description of where several of the new areas are located. They didn't bring back that much, there's a few things like Mount Chiliad and Grove Street etc but it's mostly new. 

 

Besides, SA's Los Santos is much more similar to real life Los Angeles than III's Liberty City is to real life New York. Making IV's LC more realistic compared to III's = a big change. Making V's LS more realistic compared to SA's = not as much of a change.

Edited March 13 by billiejoearmstrong8

[universetwisters 34,549]

13 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

Pretty sure you can't legally (or U.S law in GTA V says otherwise?) land your plane in those general areas you listed for GTA V like e.g Fort Zancudo. There is only one airport in GTA V where you can legally land.

That's why I referred to GTA SA, where you have different airports on which you can legally land and justify air travel. 

 

I mean there's also the sandy shores airfield but apparently that's not a real place to land a plane

[Ryo256 1,882]

29 minutes ago, universetwisters said:

I mean there's also the sandy shores airfield but apparently that's not a real place to land a plane

Yeah my thoughts exactly. I think R* wanted to include another airport at Paleto Bay since it says something like this on their official page:

But it seems in the end we got the discount airfield over at Sandy Shores instead. So for a game with planes, there is apparently only one airport it seems.

 

Edited March 13 by Ryo256

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

There's other places to land so planes aren't totally useless in V they way they would've been in IV. But there's no real air travel destinations the way there is in SA.

 

It's like that big ring road circling the map that takes you from Los Santos back to Los Santos, technically it takes you to other destinations but there's a certain pointlessness to it in the same way there is when you take off from an international airport and the only place to go other than circling around and coming back is some tiny dirt airstrip next to a hick town.

Edited March 13 by billiejoearmstrong8

[The Tracker 228]

I can count with one hand how many times I used that freaking seaplane in VC.

[FanEu7 602]

The map in GTA 3 was lackluster, that's why. LC back then didn't really feel much like NY at all, GTA IV does a much better job at recapturing the city. And I definitely prefer the GTA IV names for the streets and areas.

 

Planes wouldn't add anything to GTA IV, the map is not made for that. If they went with the original Liberty City state idea then they would have been fine

 

[Americana 6,159]

Why not, though? It's not like they intended to recreate the city we've seen in Grand Theft Auto III.

 

They wanted to create a city based on New York, and so it happens it has been already done with Grand Theft Auto III (Don't tell me that the city wasn't based on New York, because it clearly was). That's why both of them are named Liberty City. I don't think there's more to it.

 

5 hours ago, The Tracker said:

I can count with one hand how many times I used that freaking seaplane in VC.

Yeah, I've used it once - in the mission.

Edited March 14 by Americana

[TheSantader25 7,303]

Who needs "legal" places to land planes in a game like GTA. You can literally land planes on a place as small as the maze bank in GTA V if you are skilled enough. The whole reason people want planes is because they are "fun" and add another type vehicle to travel and have fun with. They should be included in every GTA. No excuses. Add a parachute and you don't even need a place to land amirite? I'm pretty sure the majority of people don't even land their planes most times. They just jump out.

 

Edited March 14 by TheSantader25

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

27 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Who needs "legal" places to land planes in a game like GTA. You can literally land planes on a place as small as the maze bank in GTA V if you are skilled enough. The whole reason people want planes is because they are "fun" and add another type vehicle to travel and have fun with. They should be included in every GTA. No excuses. Add a parachute and you don't even need a place to land amirite? I'm pretty sure the majority of people don't even land their planes most times. They just jump out.

 

 

Now they will be in every GTA. But back then San Andreas was the only GTA with a good selection of planes (VC and VCS just with one or two token ones that weren't used much, and none in III or LCS), they weren't exactly a cornerstone of GTA and it was the norm for Liberty City not to have them and anywhere that didn't have countryside not to have a lot of them. No "excuse" was necessary, they weren't something that should've been automatically expected at that point. It has helicopters and TBOGT adds parachutes so I dunno how much they would add anyway. 

 

Btw in GTA V you do need "legal" places to land because you literally get a wanted level for bailing out of your aircraft, even if it's to go parachuting. One of many examples of how poorly designed the wanted system is. At least in IV/TBOGT you can have fun screwing around with your helicopter and jumping out without being penalised for it. It's also way more fun to bail out because you can use momentum to go flying across the map, and if you land in water you don't die. Whereas in V you go into a "falling" animation that makes you just drop straight down regardless of how much momentum you built up, death is guaranteed, and once you own a parachute you're forced to use it so you can't even have fun throwing yourself out of a plane or off a building without having to open and remove a parachute first anymore. Also there's no breaking off the propellor or tail of a helicopter for fun times like in IV, in V you always just explode instead. IV's aircraft/flying does have its advantages.

Edited March 14 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Algonquin Assassin 51,103]

22 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

Who needs "legal" places to land planes in a game like GTA. You can literally land planes on a place as small as the maze bank in GTA V if you are skilled enough. The whole reason people want planes is because they are "fun" and add another type vehicle to travel and have fun with. They should be included in every GTA. No excuses. Add a parachute and you don't even need a place to land amirite?

 

As I said before I think complaining about the lack of parachutes is more valid and actually make sense since they were withheld for TBOGT for some reason so there’s really no reason why they couldn’t have been included in GTA IV. That I can understand.

 

However with planes it just feels like another one of those things people get antsy over that San Andreas had that GTA IV doesn’t. Even in GTA III and Vice City planes always felt like a novelty. They’re not as important as people make them out to be like we’re talking about Flight Simulator or something.

 

There needs to be a more compelling argument than something that’s “fun”. It’s been nearly 13 years and I still haven’t seen one yet, but people always  give good, logical opposing arguments leaving personal bias out of it.

Edited March 14 by Algonquin Assassin

[billiejoearmstrong8 5,851]

I think them being fun is a good enough reason to include them. But they always have to weigh up what's worth including and what they can leave out, there isn't room for everything. Leaving planes out of IV seems like a fair decision to me and likely meant they were able to include other features or details that were more worthwhile for that particular game.

[TheSantader25 7,303]

@Algonquin Assassin

 

Starting from GTA III, R* always expanded the vehicle variety with each release so it's only natural that people were surprised that it wasn't the case in IV. I think it once again comes to what we as different people value as "necessary" gameplay elements. To me, planes should never have been cut out. I don't accept any excuses for that. Whether it was because of new engine or focusing on "other things".

 

After San Andreas I felt like planes add so much to the series that they should simply be considered a very necessary gameplay element. I understand that some people feel they weren't needed in IV. But to me, they are inseparable from the series after San Andreas. The amount of fun I have had with them is beyond anything else R* have focused on in IV. To me, there's no special feature in IV that compensates for the lack of planes. But then again it's my opinion. It's all about what we think is a "vital" part of the gameplay in this series and we have different takes on what that is.

 

Edited March 14 by TheSantader25

[Algonquin Assassin 51,103]

32 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

@Algonquin Assassin

 

Starting from GTA III, R* always expanded the vehicle variety with each release so it's only natural that people were surprised that it wasn't the case in IV. I think it once again comes to what we as different people value as "necessary" gameplay elements. To me, planes should never have been cut out. I don't accept any excuses for that. Whether it was because of new engine or focusing on "other things".

 

After San Andreas I felt like planes add so much to the series that they should simply be considered a very necessary gameplay element. I understand that some people feel they weren't needed in IV. But to me, they are inseparable from the series after San Andreas. The amount of fun I have had with them is beyond anything else R* have focused on in IV. To me, there's no special feature in IV that compensates for the lack of planes. But then again it's my opinion. It's all about what we think is a "vital" part of the gameplay in this series and we have different takes on what that is.

 

Fair enough, but I’m not making any “excuses” nor is anyone else. We’re just giving our reasons why they weren’t  included.

 

It’s not like I have a problem with planes lol. I get why people like them, but for me I just don’t see any good reason for them to have been in GTA IV much like you don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t have been removed, but we know we’re at a crossroads as our philosophies for the series are completely different. I have a preference for function over form.

Edited March 14 by Algonquin Assassin