They were apparently supposed to be in GTA4 but, well Rockstar wanted to avoid the inevitable 9/11 parodies.TopazFusion said:So pilot-able planes are making a comeback?
They were apparently supposed to be in GTA4 but, well Rockstar wanted to avoid the inevitable 9/11 parodies.TopazFusion said:So pilot-able planes are making a comeback?
Also, the map wasn't big enough for planes to be useful. In this one it will be, seeing is this one apparently has THE largest map in a GTA game ever.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:They were apparently supposed to be in GTA4 but, well Rockstar wanted to avoid the inevitable 9/11 parodies.TopazFusion said:So pilot-able planes are making a comeback?
I still bet the media will find a way to demonize GTA 5.TopazFusion said:Ahhh, because GTA4 was based off New York?Patrick_and_the_ricks said:They were apparently supposed to be in GTA4 but, well Rockstar wanted to avoid the inevitable 9/11 parodies.TopazFusion said:So pilot-able planes are making a comeback?
And now we're in a different city somewhere else. I guess that makes sense.
Actually I was going to mention that, Liberty City just wasn't well suited for Airplanes. Wasn't all that huge and the Airport would have been the only place large enough for a landing.Froggy Slayer said:Also, the map wasn't big enough for planes to be useful. In this one it will be, seeing is this one apparently has THE largest map in a GTA game ever.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:They were apparently supposed to be in GTA4 but, well Rockstar wanted to avoid the inevitable 9/11 parodies.TopazFusion said:So pilot-able planes are making a comeback?
From the screen, I can see that the pilot seems to be the white protagonist from the trailers; in any case he's in casual wear, which suggests either that jets ARE pilotable, or that Rockstar are going out of their way to deceive us. My money's on the first option.Slayer_2 said:You never know man, you never know.Froggy Slayer said:I doubt that Rockstar would be that tricky. If the jet fighter is pilot-able (and the evidence so far is saying that it will be), then Rockstar, SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY.Slayer_2 said:Better than the missions where you have to chase a motorbiker and running over him with a 3000 pound sports car doesn't even touch him, but rather causes you to drive OVER him, and get pushed out of his way.Thomas Mccluskey said:If the game has a better system for aiming while driving, preferably something similar to that of Red Dead, I'll buy it. If not, there are always other games. The alternative to a new aiming system would be for Rockstar to just stop creating missions in which I have to shoot out another car's tires (the hitbox for which is about three-by-nine pixels) while driving at high speed through traffic. It's just one of those things that makes me want to throw rotten fruit at game designers.
Also, just because a jet fighter and bike was shown, doesn't mean they'll be playable, I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. Could be scenery pieces.
San Andreas started out normally, went kind of crazy around the halfway mark, and then suddenly went back to being serious at the end.octafish said:Apart from the improved vehicle handling, yes I said improved, I couldn't see the difference in tone between the earlier GTA games and GTAIV. If you stick to the main story they are all almost identical in tone, certainly they are from Vice City on. Then again I don't faff about in GTA games, just sticking to the main story.
The simple solution is for Rockstar to split the IP into two games, one totally serious (feeling like GTA IV) and the other a little more off the wall (feeling like GTA SA) Reuse all the animations textures maps and all that but just tweak the story for each, or release a crazy story mode as an expansion, but use all of the other material from the serious one.GonzoGamer said:Snip Re: Seriousness of GTA
It's not a bad idea (I would like to see what R* does if really focused on absurdity; LA Noir wasn't a particularly bad example of focusing on drama; I mean the acting/face animation not the predictable plot) but I still think the simple solution is to just have that stuff hidden away for people to look for, like they used to do.Rayne870 said:The simple solution is for Rockstar to split the IP into two games, one totally serious (feeling like GTA IV) and the other a little more off the wall (feeling like GTA SA) Reuse all the animations textures maps and all that but just tweak the story for each, or release a crazy story mode as an expansion, but use all of the other material from the serious one.GonzoGamer said:Snip Re: Seriousness of GTA
Sounds about right. Not only that, but now your on-foot turning circle has expanded from coffee table size to the diameter of a Merry-Go-Round.kortin said:With GTA 4's handling, I'm expecting V's city roads to all be made out of ice and the street cleaners spread a super slippery lubricant on them every night.
Didn't stop GTA 3 from including the Dodo. IV couldn't even manage that. Why not?Patrick_and_the_ricks said:Actually I was going to mention that, Liberty City just wasn't well suited for Airplanes. Wasn't all that huge and the Airport would have been the only place large enough for a landing.Froggy Slayer said:Also, the map wasn't big enough for planes to be useful. In this one it will be, seeing is this one apparently has THE largest map in a GTA game ever.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:They were apparently supposed to be in GTA4 but, well Rockstar wanted to avoid the inevitable 9/11 parodies.TopazFusion said:So pilot-able planes are making a comeback?