Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Pirate released 360 Version

A pirated group of people tagging itself 'Icon' released a United Kingdom retail copy of the game at 10:50 hours GMT. Subsequently Youtube videos started to appear confirming the fact: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=90chndWcgGs files appeared on Usenet sites soon after. Microsoft also took the unusual step of contacting every journalist who has a preview copy asking them for their gamertags as well as requesting that they set their consoles to appear 'offline' together with instructions for same so they may monitor illegal usage. Twobells (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If this does belong in the article, here's a citation: http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/04/23/grand-theft-auto-iv-leaked-online/. I have not the heart to add it myself. For me the grief is still too near. xenocidic (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Where should it go? Downloadable Content under Xbox 360? :) No, seriously? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
No.Wageslave (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel like adding it either tbh, I don't want it to impact on Rockstar North.Twobells (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaks are unencyclopedic, expected, and this leak is not significant FYI. Btw. it was pre'd approx. 10:50:47 GMT (or was it 09? I hate DST). :) --nlitement [talk] 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Morally I wouldn't agree with adding it but it is significant. Maybe it should be added after the game's release so that it won't cause so much damage? Wikipedia's not a news site so there's no rush. The only people who would benefit from it being added urgently are the people who want to download it. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now thats a sound idea.Twobells (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On a seperate issue two major newsgroup hosts crashed or were seriously overloaded by demand, I'd suggest thats significant enough to add as well after release.Twobells (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope everyone agrees then. It's like the world's press when Prince Harry went to Iraq. Let's hope some Australians don't come along and ruin it! :) ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 15:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with Nlitement, Most games/movies are leaked in some way and it's not usually mentioned unless something significant happens (eg. release date changes in response). Bill (talk|contribs) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Decision: Add the pirating issue info after official release or ignore unless something significant happens as a result of same?Twobells (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's silly to not to mention it because of "moral issues", specifically because Wikipedia does not censor. However, I think Bill makes a good point regarding other media being leaked all the time. The Halo 3 article has a leaks section, but there was actually a reaction by Bungie. Unless something notable comes out of this, there's no reason to mention it. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk • contribs) 20:41,

23 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont see it as that notable. Wageslave (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the general consensus is it's only notable if the publisher/developer comments on it. Otherwise, it's not. Fin©™ 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If after the release the developers say it affected sales or anything like that then it would be notable. But pretty much every 360/PC game is pirated and is not mentioned on wikipedia. This isn't any different. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a major leak, though DAVID CAT
The actual leak is no different to most leaks unless it's commented on by RockStar, or people are prosecuted like when Star Wars episode 3 was leaked. I'd be more inclined to inserting it into the article if there was more information that just "GTA IV has been leaked". Bill (talk|contribs) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC is reporting the leak [1] Cavenbame parlez 13:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically yes. But it's BBC Newsbeat, when it's BBC News then it'll be worth mentioning in the article. This report is basically just re-reporting website comments. - X201 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It was reported on BBC News, I saw it with my own eyes. It linked to BBC Newsbeat, but the headline was on the right, under "Technology" on the main BBC News website. I think it's rather silly that news of this leak is not in the wikipedia article, especially since the news has hit major sites like BBC news. -Z
GTA: San Andreas was leaked onto the internet too but it wasn't mentioned because there was nothing really notable about the leak. Most stuff ends up on the internet and not much can be said other than it is leaked. There were no reported steps taken to ensure the game wasn't leaked when it was shipped, so there's nothing really that unusual about this leak. There doesn't seem to be any response to it and without that it doesn't really add to the article. If Rockstar or TakeTwo respond by saying "this has hurt our sales", or the police make arrests or something else significant happens, there would be more information to use in the article. Otherwise it's not really that important. Bill (talk|contribs) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree Bill, whilst I personally doubt very much this will make a difference to sales at all, it does interfere with their marketing of the game. Rockstar (or Take 2?) market the Grand theft auto games in a particular way, notably holding back media, in order to maintain hype (or should I say excitement), and I think the fact that Take 2 is going crazy on youtube is fairly notable - they clearly have a problem with the leak. Having said all this, I don't really care that much and I guess it's of minimal importance, relatively speaking. Just thought it'd be a useful addition to the page, considering the notoriety of GTA releases. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If you (or anyone) can find a source discussing how the leak is affecting/interfering with the marketing of GTA IV then it probably would be good to include in the article. Bill (talk|contribs) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't noteworthy. 99% of all games have been illegally digitally distributed. Finding a video game that hasn't been pirated would be noteworthy.--Can Not (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not notable be normal GTA standards

"Notable weapons in this game other than melee fighting with fists and knives include pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, and molotov cocktails."

Pretty much all of the above weapons have been in every GTA game to date. I'm going to remove it as it seems redundant to mention it. It's akin to saying the next half-life episode will have combine enemies in it. JackorKnave (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But they have recieved a bit of an update, if you have watched some of the G4 Tech TV vids that went up.

If you want you can mention the differences.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.188.76 (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but to re-iterate: There is absolutely nothing notable about having the exact same weapons, also in answer to you, no offence man, but there no "differences" mentioned in the above quote. JackorKnave (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree here. Were any of the above weapons NOT to feature in this game, then maybe that would be worth a mention. Seeing that their inclusion has been such a standard in previous GTA games this kinda info is totally irrelevant to the article. It's practically the same as stating a new Mario game "incorporates a combat mechanism of jumping and landing on an enemies head to inflict damage" :P Hayaku (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length

Soon, we should consider splitting this article as it's 59 kB (that's pretty big), as per WP:SPLIT. Also, the article is roughly 5,000 words of prose FYI. No rush. Cavenbame parlez 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the "Gameplay" section could be trimmed down. It's hugely oversized at the moment. It seems to be going into far too much detail than is necessary for this article. .:Alex:. 20:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sections like Gameplay and Controversy could even be split into smaller articles. Cavenbame parlez 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like it could be split down reasonably. I in no way, directly oppose a splitting, but it seems like nothing is necessarily notable enough to split down, except maybe controversy. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean. Most definitely, "Controversy" should be split, as it's notable enough to have its own article. Cavenbame parlez 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Gameplay should not be trimmed. I feel it need another article. There are many new gameplay addition that has been added to GTA 4. Controversy must be split. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember though this is not a game guide, unless there are notable gameplay additions they don't need to be mentioned. John Hayestalk 14:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Just how big is the controversy section in approximate bytes? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception

IGN states that they last gave a 10 to SOUL CALIBUR, NOT ZELDA:OOT. Read the last page of the article.

A "10" is not a score we give out very often. In fact, the last time we gave a 10 to a console game was Soul Calibur in 1999.

[2]

--96.236.17.13 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, I put the Soul Calibur in the article yesterday, but someone edited it out and put Zelda.
I edited it back. PLEASE NO ONE SAY THAT IT WAS ZELDA, BECAUSE ZELDA WAS IN 98. SOUL CALIBUR WAS 99!
PoisonGodmachine (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can some one please put that this game has recieved more perfect scores then any other games in history, I think even more then any movies, or any form of media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you 100% sure that it is the most perfect scorring media? you gotta look at top charts for movies, actors, singers, bands, songs, or any other form of media, it has gotten many perfect scorse, just make sure you take credit away from another media giant. King Cangri (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PC Version?

Is a PC version in the works? Release date? I feel its relevant to the article since as far as I know every other GTA game has had a PC version from initial release. 203.217.13.50 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rockstar has made no mention so far, I've read some hearsay (or readsay since its the internet) posts on forums about the Hot Coffee incident caused Rockstar to swear off PC ports but nothing official.Skeith (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is currently no official confirmation regarding PC version. Until there is an information nothing must be added. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth noting, the following information from Grand Theft Auto III article
Following GTA III, PlayStation 2 GTA games generally followed GTA III release pattern, in which the Microsoft Windows port is released within seven to eight months after the PlayStation 2 versions' release.[46][47][48]
--Chibbie (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, but Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories don't have a PC version, mostly because of the critical response on the port between the PlayStation Portable and PlayStation 2. I know it's not a forum, or something like that, but about the topic, I found a Swiss online video game shop, which offers pre-ordering the PC version of Grand Theft Auto IV with the release date November 30th, 2008. [3] I don't know that this information is notable enough, though. 80.99.138.114 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV Coming to PC in October? --WikiCats (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that before. It looks like complete speculation without anything to back it up. Bill (talk|contribs) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's money to be made in the PC market (and there almost certainly is) then I have no doubt that a computer version will come out pretty soon, regardless of the hot coffee incident ( aspeople associate that episode with the entire GTA franchise, not just the PC version of San Andreas). In fact, I've heard confirmation of a PC port from people close to the games development, but with no word of a release date. However, since we're almost guaranteed not to hear an official announcement for at least another month, such speculation does not belong on wikipedia. grarap (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)grarap
Unofficial x86 PC backport will be ready before factory version! The cracked Apple porting kit for x86 <--> PowerPC cross-development can be used to reverse code from PPC-cored Sony PS3 to IBM-compatibles. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

guys i think i found something just check it out: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daron19 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that cover on the German site is a fake. They forgot to delete the PS3 from the right top corner of the image. Its the PS3 cover with Games for Windows bar added to it. Check it yourself if you don't believe me still this might not mean the info is anyway wrong. I would quite frankly except the PC versio before end of the year as it would not be very wise to leave the PC gamers out. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember this is not a forum. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

you re right you can see the PAL sign... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daron19 (talk • contribs)

View stats

This article was viewed more than 144K times yesterday. JACOPLANE • 2008-04-29 14:58

that is an odd article... but its cool Al1012 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems connecting to multiplayer for Playstation3

I'm not sure if it important enough to go in the main article but lots of Playstation 3 users can't acces multiplayer and are getting the message "Cannot connect to game provider" if they try.

http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/04/29/gta-iv-online-is-down/ http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=gta&thread.id=372660&view=by_date_ascending&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasetry (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, around 3 million people are trying to connect at roughly the same time. What do you expect? Neıl ☎ 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not just for PS3 by the way; http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/04/29/gta-iv-released-gamers-report-problems-on-ps3-xbox-360/

(Clarkey4boro (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

that link is talking about the freezing issue, not the internet multiplayer issue. the internet multiplayer issue seems to only be a problem for ps3 owners. i think there was mention somewhere about a problem with PSN that was also causing some of the loading problems, and that if you disconnected / disabled the internet that the game was able to load. the 360 problems seem to be disc read issues rather than a conflict with the internet multiplayer. 172.165.197.126 (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

multiplayer

i was thinking, maybe the multiplayer will let u play with people on the PS3 if your on the Xbox 360 and if your on the PS3 u can play with people on the Xbox 360.... if not they will have to make a some gun game for both systems so u can play like that.... so me and my friend can see who is better with out fighting (i dont know the PS3 controler or i dont know the Xbox 360 controler) Al1012 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion but only ideas on how to improve the article on factuals. To answer your question: no. They will never have cross-platform multiplayer for two completely different companys.NoGoodScoundrel (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA! did the first guy really say that? WOW....no further comment...nakamine 4:26 1 may (EST)

you see, the problem with making a cross platform game is beacuse technicals are completlyly different, and even though you and your friend might do it as friendly competition, a die hard fan of PS3 or X Box with an extensive criminal past might not sit well to losing to a guy from the other system, so no, never is or will happen, sorry bud.King Cangri (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, FFXI Online has been successfully ported to PS2, Xbox 360, and PC and allows all players to play together regardless of platform. Multi-console online play is not only possible, but an effective business model. 67.130.11.13 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pre-launch violence" Section

I think the inclusion "Pre-launch violence" section is POV and reeks of tabloid jornalism gunning for the game. The wikipedia article on Nike shoes does not have any mention on people getting robbed for their sneakers. --8bitJake (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. People get robbed all the time (sadly). I do not see any reason why this is something else then with people being mugged at ATMs or on the street. Just because they were waiting to buy GTA4? That's rubbish and does not contribute anything to the article. --SoWhy Talk 21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, I think especially this game is one where it can almost directly relate - no other games (not even Halo 3) are reported to have this, except maybe the PS3 as a console. // Gargaj (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It is statistically insignificant compared to other major media products. The articles scream tabloid journalism of a desk editor looking to make news from fake news. There are NASCAR tracks that have jails in them. The Wikipeida article on NASCAR does not have a mention of crime at a NASCAR track. --8bitJake (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hoping to build consensus, I add my name to those who say the section is unnecessary. Steve T • C 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it. The PS3 article has a similar sentence[5] "Reports of violence surrounding the release of the PS3 include a customer shot,[31] campers robbed at gunpoint,[32] customers shot in a drive-by shooting with BB guns,[33] and 60 campers fighting over 10 systems.[34]" I suggest we remove the Pre-launch violence heading though. I suggest the Marketing heading be changed to Marketing and release (like the Halo 3 article). And I suggest the Sales section be moved to the new Marketing and release section. The stabbing and mugging could be mentioned in that section. I initially put the Sales section below the Reception section because it began with a sentence about the stock price gaining amid positive reviews. And I didn't think that the Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV article would really be the "main article" for a Marketing and release section, but just a Marketing section. We could even just have a plain Release heading, and put the Sales section in there. I don't see how the "neutrality" of the Pre-launch violence section is disputed, although I do think that the heading should be removed. --Pixelface (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The section is stupid. Do we have a section in Vauxhall Corsa detailing occasions where people stole one? Or one Nokia N95 about one time where some guy got mugged for his phone? Of course not. I'm removing it. Neıl ☎ 10:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced it. It is fairly relevant, given the type of game. I suggest we attempt to achieve consensus below.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the issue though, the type of game it is should have no influence whatsoever on whether this section is relevant because that would be a disingenuous connection. Kurushi (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

VNU net are reporting it as a bit of tabloid rubbish [6] - X201 (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Pre-launch violence" section consensus

  • Keep - there is potentially some correlation between the type of game (and the popularity thereof) and the violence that has been exhibited. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a vote, the section is dumb, and the majority above agreed. I've re-removed it. Please don't edit war unless you can get a consensus such a section should be in the article. Neıl ☎ 10:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, it's not a vote - the section was IN the article and you removed it. Until consensus is reached one way or the other it should stay. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, I would vote against it. People get mugged for precious things all the time. Unless there is proof for direct correlation (which there isn't) between the game (it's content not the fact that everyone wants it) and two single incidents, then that's something for The Sun but not for Wikipedia. --SoWhy Talk 10:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove - Someone got mugged and had the game stolen? This isn't evidence of a connection with the game. How about I go to the iPod article and write "One time my iPod got stolen on the subway." What is the difference between that and this?►Chris NelsonHolla! 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really an argument, but if you had reliable sources that cited a trend for thefts of iPods in particular there's no reason for it not to go in there. I think that the reason this is so applicable in this case is the violent nature of the game and the thefts that have been reported. Beating someone up for an iPod, while objectionable, is vaguely understandable given the cost of said item, but for a thirty-quid game? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • But there is no evidence of a trend or connection, just like in my example.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Jedilofty, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid in a deletion debate - not relevant here. If you believe this is applicable due to the violent nature of the game, provide a source for that, or you're just synthesixing sources to give the impression to the reader that GTA IV causes muggings. People get mugged for fifty pence, let alone a forty quid game. Neıl ☎ 16:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move the mention of release-related violence to a Release section. I don't think we need a whole section devoted to it, just a sentence. These are sources that can be cited[7][8]. And I see two articles on BBC News[9][10] And we might even cite Iain Thomson who said the stabbing was disputed.[11] --Pixelface (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There have been four attacks so far - I think that warrants more than a single sentence. As for the Iain Thomson article you linked to, I think a DI in the CID is a bit more reliable than some vague, unnamed "source" talking to a blog! :-) -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I've looked at the section now and I think it's okay. Although I was unsure about the part about the Japanese restaurant. I can't speak for the veracity of the Thomson article but I believe I saw it mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I rewrote the text that cited Mercury News to make it less like the source. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Good catch. I usually try to rephrase text if I get it from a website, but I obviously didn't do such a good job here! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: We don't get to decide what's relevant and what's worth reporting on. Reliable sources do. And the bottom line is that the various acts of violence are being widely reported; we can't just leave them off of this page because we don't like them. I wouldn't be opposed to moving it if someone wants, but the info should be mentioned. Oren0 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course we get to decide what's relevant - otherwise we could get a bot to automatically paste in bits of random text from websites and auto-generate references. Being referenced does not mean it should be in the article. Jeez. And we don't "report" on anything - this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Perhaps you want Wikinews? Why should the infomration be mentioned? Why is the fact a few people had their copies stolen relevant? I had my car stolen last year - there was a small article about it in the local paper (not much car theft round here). Should I put it a section about it in the VW Golf article? I could reference it and everything. Good lord. Neıl ☎ 20:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Please try to remain civil while we discuss the article. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think they should be mentioned in the article. The shootings occurred during the launch of the game, and don't really have anything to do with the game itself. The article on Grand Theft Auto III mentions a murder because the shooter said he was inspired by GTA III. If the person who shot someone at the GTA IV launch said "I shot him because I saw it in GTA IV" then it should be in this article. But all this pre-launch violence really has nothing to do with the actual game. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Coasttocoast's points here, and also Neil's reply to Oren0 above. Bill (talk|contribs) 23:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, they have to do with the game's launch and the media's coverage of that launch, so I don't see a problem mentioning it the article. I see now that the section has been reduced to a sentence in the Sales and impact section "There have been reports in the United Kingdom and the United States of crimes perpetrated against people purchasing Grand Theft Auto IV, as well as employees of stores selling the game." I guess that sentence is okay, but not really an improvement in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pixelface, move the mention to a Release section and tamper with it so that it doesn't take up so much space. Emil Kastberg (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus summary

  • For including the section - JediLofty, Pixelface, oren0
  • Against including it - Neil, 8bitJake, Steve, SoWhy, Chrisjnelson, Douglasnicol, Bill, CoasttoCoast, Kurushi, Metagraph

So, three editors say we should have the section, six say we should not have the section. I think that's pretty clear. Please would someone remove it, now? Neıl ☎ 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

4-6 now. Oren0 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
3-8 now. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Two days is not sufficient time to achieve consensus. The AfD process allows five days. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

in addition, I see two Keeps, one Move and only one Remove in the consensus section above. Remember - this is NOT a vote (see WP:VOTE). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh for God's sake. Read the page properly. You are correct - this is not a vote. However, you decided to make it one. As it is not a vote, Wikipedia nevertheless operates by consensus, and consensus is against including the section. This is not an AFD discussion - 5 days is not necessary, and two days is prefectly adequate to gauge editor's opinions. Unless consensus changes, the section (rightly) stays out of the article. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Neil, please respect the positions of other editors. Why do you think that reports of crime related to the game's launch do not belong in the article about the game? Do you think the single sentence in the Sales and impact section is okay? --Pixelface (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
They aren't really related to the games launch. They are reports of thefts of the game, yes, but a few articles about a product being stolen don't mean we should have a section in that products article. This argument has been given a few times, but here's another - if there had been a handful of news stories about muggings/thefts where an iPhone had been taken from the victim (and I found a few on Google news), would/should that be in the iPhone article? Or if someone had their car stolen, should the news story appear on the Fiat Panda article? Of course not. Why would a few thefts of this game feature in an encyclopaedic article on the game? Neıl ☎ 13:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Because the BBC News[12][13], The Daily Telegraph[14], and San Jose Mercury News[15] have written about it? I think violence surrounding the game's launch is related to the game's launch. The PS3 article says[16] "Reports of violence surrounding the release of the PS3 include a customer shot,[31] campers robbed at gunpoint,[32] customers shot in a drive-by shooting with BB guns,[33] and 60 campers fighting over 10 systems.[34]" and nobody seems to have a problem with that. --Pixelface (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT- Include my name in a vote if I have not specifically stated what my position is. That is horrendously inappropriate and a violation of my position here. I am very much against including the section this is made very clear in my comment in the There are 61 articles about a man being stabbed, we're going to add this in. section. I am extremely disappointed that my name has been used for someone else's argument. It does not say anywhere in this talk page the word 'KEEP' followed by my name, so why the hell was my name included in the 'FOR' vote!? Whoever added my name should offer me an explanation and an apology. I have removed my name from the 'keep' vote and do not want to see it added again unless I choose. Unbelievable!Kurushi (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    • It was me who put your name there, and I apologise if I misrepresented your views. Sorry. For an explanation, I was simply counting up the views expressed above (whether people had explicitly said "keep" or "remove" or whatever). Neıl ☎ 13:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding. Kurushi (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I just realised I missed Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado's signature - that explains why I messed up. Again, my bad. Neıl ☎ 13:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For those who oppose keeping the section in (and I am very sympathetic to that position), I offer this consolation: In a month or two, nobody is going to care anymore, and you can just remove the section without complaint. Seriously, a couple dudes getting mugged is not notable in the sense that somebody reading this in 2010 is going to care. In fact, in 2010 it will probably seem sort of out of place and weird to have such a section.

Right now, with a bazillion news outlets trumping up a couple muggings so they can yap longer about GTAIV, it will be hard to argue against the people who want to include it, even if they are wrong. But this won't even be an argument in another month or two. If the consensus says keep, be patient: it will change. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess what it boils down to is that if someone is mugged with a copy of GTAIV the media will inevitably relate the crime to the content of the game rather than to the value of the possession, how desirable it is and therefore how quickly it can be sold on (which obviously is of more concern to the mugger). As such you'll never read an article about a mugger stealing a copy of 'Barbie Horse Adventures' because people would say "it's a shame they got mugged but why mention some video game?" whereas because it's GTA they're like "it's a shame they got mugged, the mugger was probably influenced by the content of the game they stole" Knowing that this kind of negative publicity is spouted with a specific agenda makes me not want to include it in the article. However Wikipedia, through no fault of its own, operates on a basis of references regardless of their integrity and because there are several sources referring to this issue I can understand it's inclusion. I just think it perpetuates the false crime/content connection and therefore weakens the article because essentially it isn't about the game. That said, I think the current draft is kind of diplomatic as it states that the Croydon story was rubbish. Kurushi (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Niko's nationality is confirmed in opening cutscene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpw0vIl4SEM

The opening cutscene confirms Niko and Roman to be Serbian. Specifically at 2:58 in the video. This isnt from an article or a biased source, ITS FROM THE GAME ITSELF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rza90 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Italy seems like a good guess. In the game, it mentioned "Old Country", and "Adriatic". Old country is referred to as Italy to Italian Immigrants and Italy is near the Adriatic Sea. I am looking for proof right now. signed by: Ferrariguy1000 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Italy? How do you get Italy? It says Serbian, specifically says it. So you can change "nationality unknown" under plot right? 70.57.90.20 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They actually say Serbia in the game. --8bitJake (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Stop changing the information, At 2:58 in the opening scene it is CLEARLY stated that Niko is Serbian, theres even a screenshot from the video that shows the text stating he is Serbian. I posted the link to the video, how is that not a good source? Its the ACTUAL OPENING CUTSCENE. Why does it keep getting changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rza90 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Plenty of reliable sources as well: msnbc kotaku mirror guardian // laughing man 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could shoot the people in the face who still think that Niko's not Serbian. It was obvious as soon as it was revealed in previews that he fought in a war some 10 years ago, served in "Balkan Peace Forces", and trailer 2 where he said "zdravo burazeru". --nlitement [talk] 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, just thought I'd touch up on this issue. Niko speaks his language and Roman doesn't understand. Niko asks if he forgot their language and Roman says "a little, better than my Serbian". I see at no point how this proves he is Serbian, if anything, it proves he is not. 76.126.119.26 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

^^ Um...Romans talking english, and says he speaks english better then Serbian, that means Niko is speaking Serbian and Roman dosent udnerstand it well. Niko says "what, you forget our language?" So Nikos language is the same as Romans, which is Serbian. It proves that after 15 years Roman knows English better then Serbian, because hes been living in LC. in addition to the fact that when Niko speaks Serbian in game the translation has (Serbian) after it. In addition to the fact that in game,Vlad, Romans boss, mentions they are Serbian. Your point makes no sense, really its getting annoying with some of you people, Niko and Roman are Serbs, deal with it haters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.116.192.94 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, analyzing the opening cutscene is original research, like it or not. Second of all, the fact that they spoke the Serbian language proves nothing, as it is spoken in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and anywhere else people of ethnic Serbian descent may be living.
That said, there are plenty of reliable sources who have made the inference that Nikko is Serbian, as referenced by Laughing Man. It doesn't matter if the intro says he is from Kazakhstan and that his sister is #2 prostitute in all of country -- if MSNBC, the Mirror, and the Guardian all say he is Serbian, then from the standpoint of Wikipedia, he's Serbian. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong thinking, but right answer - if the game says he's Serbian, then as the primary source on the matter it can be referenced for this (use the {{cite video}} template (intended for "audio and visual media sources"), like so: <ref name="gtaiv">{{cite video|title=Grand Theft Auto IV|medium=[[PS3]]|publisher=[[Rockstar Games]]|location=[[New York City]]|date2=2008-04-29}}</ref>). See WP:PSTS - primary sources can be used for straightforward facts (e.g., "The game itself describes Bellic as Serbian[1]"). Neıl ☎ 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My impression is that Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources, because they are open to interpretation. (unfortunately I am having trouble locating the exact policy)
And in fact, this specific example is a beautiful case study for why primary sources are eschewed: The primary source has Nikko and Roman discussing whether Roman has forgotten "our language," i.e. Serbian. It does not have Nikko saying, "Hey brother, we are totally from Serbia, isn't that awesome!" They merely say that "their" language is Serbian. Some people interpret this as confirmation that they are Serbian; other people do not, e.g. some people leave open that they may be Croation rather than Serbian.
Which is why we prefer the secondary or tertiary sources. We can argue all day about whether that line from the cutscene means they are actually from Serbia originally. But nobody can argue that MSNBC referred to Nikko as "Serbian". So the case is closed by the secondary source, not the primary source. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, please, please, remove the part in the opening paragraph where it says he is Slovakian. Great, now we got this in the argument 70.57.90.200 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, it's become apparent that people who are saying he's Serb are either blatantly lying or poorly analyzing information. Therefore, I would like to state that the article will refer to Niko as Eastern European and nothing else. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Poorly analyzing information? So you're telling me that all the people on this discussion who say he is Serbian who are citing sources such as MSNBC and the Guardian are poorly analyzing information? 67.41.179.219 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. A site awhile back tried to say that Niko was Russian; they also didn't cite jack crap. If MSNBC isn't Rockstar, then their word on this particular matter means jack crap. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but MSNBC is MSNBC, not some obscure fan site. They must have had a source, right? 67.41.179.219 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, as I currently see it, Niko being Serbian is incorrect. Someone should really jump up with credible information if I'm wrong. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
But why do you say MSNBC, let alone the other sources, are uncredible? You know how big MSNBC is when it comes to news and whatnot, so I think it's safe to say it's a reliable source. 67.41.179.219 (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
We can't say he's Serbian when the game itself doesn't even say it. MSNBC writers aren't infallible in their writing, and if they didn't even say where they got it, then you can't use it. If you could, plenty of other people would come up doing the same thing with source that are doing the same thing as MSNBC. It is both sensible and logical to not use these sources. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If we're not saying he's Serbian then we better edit the Plot section to reflect that. 67.41.179.219 (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
From my understanding, it was just removed. If not, it will surely be taken care of. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
We have several reliable sources that state he is Serbian. We have no reliable sources that say otherwise...? Wikipedia is about verifiability of reliable sourcing. The "MSNBC writers aren't infallible ... and didn't even say where they got it" argument doesn't hold up against the multiple reliable sources and that we don't make judgments against reliable sources. If Rockstar or another reliable source publishes a clarification, this issue should be revisited, but until then, he's Serbian because multiple RS's say so. --guyzero | talk 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is it stated in game? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Where does it say in game?, ok in the first 3 minutes Roman says his Serbian isnt good, by which he means he dosent speak Serbian very well after being in LC for 15 years. Vlad (Romans Boss) refers to them as Serbians in game. In-game you get e-mails from Nikos mother in SERBIA, When Niko speaks his language in game, in the translation text it has (Serbian) after it. We have a lot of sources from articles, AND INFORMATION FROM THE ACTUAL GAME that say hes Serbian. What do you have Klyptyzm that says otherwise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rza90 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that the Serbo-Croatian language is spoken by a bunch of peoples in the Former Yugoslavia. That's part of what makes the Serbo-Croatian rivalry so ironic, they are ethnically the same, but because the Croats write with the Roman alphabet and are Roman Catholic, and the Serbs write in Cyrillic and are Eastern rite, they have hated each other for centuries. Unfortunately people in this country (the US) are either too dumb, too lazy, or both to learn anything about the rest of the world, and misconceptions like the ones all throughout this discussion are commonplace. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I never said I had any source that said otherwise, and as I stated above, at that point it appeared as if there wasn't any source ingame that stated it as such. Also, while the "language" sources aren't necessarily credible, if what you say is true about what Vlad said and about the e-mail from Niko's mother, then a primary source should be added in along with the readdition of Niko's nationality, if it hasn't been done so. This should quell any persistent debate about his nationality and a discussion really shouldn't grow to this proportion ever again. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The game repeatedly shows that Niko is from Serbia. Aside from the language hints, Niko was involved in the war with Bosnia, which is repeatedly mentioned in the game. Also, once chatacter refers to Niko as a "Slovak". This could be explained by nothing that the Slovak language is spoken in Vojvodina, one of the provinces of Serbia. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk • contribs)
Calling eastern Europeans "Polaks" and "Slovaks" is just a misconception by dumb, racist Americans that everyone from Eastern Europe is from one of those countries.
That said, I realize the following is entirely OR, but what Nikko is talking about with the war sounds more like the Second war in the Balkans, the one in Kosovo, where the Serbs were ethnically cleansing the area of Albanians. In addition to being closer to 10 years ago than the Bosnian war (which is more like 15 years ago), the war in Kosovo, specifically Srebrenica, had a lot of attrocities similar to what Nikko talks about with the children having their throats slit and their hands cut off, and raiding small villages, and so on. So given that, I would have to say that the overwhelming evidence from the game indicates he's Serbian, which is backed up by all of the independent media sources quoted above. I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that all of those articles were working from a press release about the game from Rockstar, or interviews with the devs or producers or something, since they all have a sentence describing Nikko in basically the same way "Serbian army veteran Nikko Bellic..." I would have to say that based on the preponderance of evidence Nikko is Serbian. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not attracted to the idea of jumping into a pointless flamefest over Niko's "nationality". He doesn't have one, he's a fictional character, and as such he was not created as a perfect fit to a real person who is Serbian. I asked a friend of mine who is Serbian, and he said Niko's last name should have one L and given that Niko's cousin's name is Roman, Niko is most likely Croatian. However, Niko isn't real. Perhaps the game creators didn't fictionalize the character correctly. Thus, there may be contradictions in his characterization and background that a real person wouldn't have. I have played through where Vlad the Russian calls Roman and Niko Serbs, so I agree within the game they are considered Serbs, but if Niko actually existed, most likely he would be Croatian (although most likely he wouldn't exist at all). And my Serbian friend also sadly pointed out that Niko's accent is more Russian than Serbian. I looked at the YouTube video linked to up top, and it doesn't say Serbian at 2:58. Roman does mention his Serbian (language) a bit later, which to me probably means that they are Serbian -- if I understand correctly, in the past the language was "Serbo-Croatian" but since the wars the Serbs have Serbian and the Croats have Croatian (so Roman should have said "Croatian" if they were Croatian), even though, as my Serbian friend said, the differences between the two are like the differences in British English and American English. So yes, in-game, he's Serbian, but he's fictional and not fictionalized with 100% accuracy. But then again, it's a game: New York isn't quite right either (but it's not New York, but it is...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.151.216 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which, once again, is why we rely on secondary sources -- a preponderance of which say "Serbian." End of story. This frees us from having to interpret the primary source, to guess to what extent the creators fictionalized correctly or incorrectly, to what extent they meant to imply certain things by certain other things... we don't have to worry about any of that, because the secondary sources say Serbian, so therefore as far as Wikipedia is concerned, he is Serbian. End of conversation. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Little-to-no continuity? I don't think so

There's no source for that, and coming from someone who actually has the game, there's a strong continuity with past titles. Several things from GTA III, VC, and SA are mentioned. Most notable is Chatterbox. WKTT directly states that Chatterbox existed in 2001. Then there are other mentions such as the Maibatsu Monstrosity, and other returning vehicles, brands, and references to locations such as Vinewood. I think that comment about the "redesigned universe" should not be re-inserted into the article because it's just ridiuclous at this point. --Duder5k (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Have any major characters in the past series of games been mentioned? What about major plot happenstances? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There are references to previous games, but otherwise it really does have little-to-no continuity with previous games. The story and characters are completely new and no previous actual events are ever mentioned. .:Alex:. 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't even need to own the game to know of the continued names and brands, it has been common knowledge since the early trailers were released. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If it does have a little continuity with the other games, why then does it say "little-to-no continuity"? It has a little continuity, how can we get away with saying it has "no continuity" when it clearly has a little? JayKeaton (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
How about saying that this game is a "spiritual" sequel to the third generation games? Daniel Blackwell (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Although the entire sentence about the continuity seems to have disappeared... --.:Alex:. 09:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just played a lot more and unlocked Algonquin, and now Integrity 2.0, Lazlows new show, is also unlocked. It specifically mentions how Chatterbox went off the air sometime after 2001 and the events in GTA III. One of the "guests" on the show also mentions Reed Tucker, who was a guest on Chatterbox in GTA III. There are also references to other events in Lazlows past such as Love Fist. If you want to be technical, Lazlow is a returning character and that creates a very strong continuity. Duder5k (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Lazlow isn't really a character anyway. He (Lazlow Jones) plays himself. Cavenbame parlez 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. :P 67.130.11.13 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange, we got rid of the info on how GTA 4 will help the US economy, and we won't tell why?

Okay, I remember reading in the 'sales' article on how GTA4 is predicted...or WILL help out economy, along with a % number on how it'll help it out...I asked why you guys would get rid of this extremely notable information and NOBODY responded, why? Honestly, we have to include this. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know but I want to know why we should just say how it would help the US economy only. There are other countries, and Rockstar North is in Britain. It is notable info but I'd find some on others if thats the case. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

$100 million Grand Theft Auto IV is most expensive game ever made in history.

Highly, highly notable. Put this in it's production article or something.

http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=A5A53467-17A4-0F78-319D9333959B1936

^^^ There is one article about it, if you want more just google '100 million grand theft auto' and i'm sure you'll find more sources. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is that website? I ask because that's entirely inaccurate. Rock Band, for example, cost a reported $200 mil to develop. Oren0 (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The wiki article on Rock Band and the source regarding this $200 mil cost is the only one i can find of on the matter (i just hope my googling skills do not suck). --Vylen (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See here [17].--SkyWalker (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


The game did take approximately $100 mill to make, which is confirmed from the interview given by the Take Two producer Leslie Benzies. Check the link below

[18]

cmalpass1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmalpass1 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

630p!

Why the hell does someone keep deleting the sourced comment about GTA 4 not running nativly in 720p on the PS3 version of the game! No reason has been provided either! --Elven6 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For god sakes, it wasn't me but how are you getting the source that PS3 is 630p when the site that you used as source took the information out from a forum?are you serious?i think is time to delete that now and ya should be more careful when making decisions about what to include in the article...most of the stuff here is pure speculation...EdwinCasadoBaez (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter where the secondary source got it from, the reliable firstdairy source has reported it so that is good enough. JayKeaton (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku isn't the only site reporting it, others are aswell! Plus, you wouldn't expect Take Two to release that kind of data which is why forum users do their own tests to figure it out. --Elven6 (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if the majority says so, it does not prove it is correct. What would be helpful is a primary source, meaning something from the people who designed it or whatever. A speculation is not enough to say it is true, no matter how many say so. Ledgo (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea because Rockstar is willing to stop potential sales of this game by officially revealing its not true HD in the first week right? --Elven6 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't need primary sources. See WP:V. If a source on the caliber of IGN, Gamespot, etc. reports it it'll easily be good enough for inclusion. Oren0 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop editing it, if it runs at 630p, which it does, then it should be put there and not changed back to 720p WHICH IS FALSE. What's the point in having an encyclopedia if the information is incorrect but it was correct the first time? There's even a proper source for it. Davek92 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It runs at 640p - please put comment back. Here is a verifiable source: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/30/ps3-grand-theft-auto-iv-is-640p-nobody-cares 80.229.70.84 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, this page is over run by fan boys who don't want to report the truth, instead they cover it up because they don't want their console of choice to look bad in the stupid console wars. Wikipedia is supposed to be open to anyone as long as they source were they go their info from, Kotaku is a reliable source, most of the sourced info in this article is from kotaku, why don't you remove that then? --Elven6 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to 630p, see my edit summary. Someone just needs to add a reference. If anyone changes it, feel free to add {{subst:uw-error1}} (replace error1 with error2, error3 or error4, you know the drill) to their talk page. StaticGull  Talk  16:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Dude, relax – Kotaku are listing fan forums as their source. No wonder people don't just take that as the truth. I myself am in favor of waiting to change it until we have some other source than some forum people who've "counted" the pixels on some blurry pictures.
And not to throw some AGF at you, but please shut up about the people who changed it being gullible and unreachable PS3 fanbois. We can do without that. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember when the Halo 3 480p controvesy happened? Who found that out? A "fan boy" forum! --Elven6 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it is about reliable sources. JayKeaton (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It should not be updated from 640p unless there is a more reliable source that says this is wrong. 80.229.70.92 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

So why are all of the other tech problems sourced from Kotaku? --Elven6 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Were they linking in turn to forums? I haven't checked, that's why I'm asking. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where they link to. Kotaku, and other sites, have reported this news. That's all that matters. I don't see what the big deal is anyway, why does it bother some people so much that one version of the game runs in a lower resolution? What difference does it make to them? JayKeaton (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes they all source a forum, which is why I smell fanboyism running amock in this article! --Elven6 (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not the reliable source has checked the to see if the fact is true. If a reliable source says it is true after they've confirmed it themselves, then it doesn't matter where it originated. Personally I don't think this info should be in the article's infobox as a fact until something more definite has been released. One more thing, saying "fanboyism running amock in this article" isn't very nice to the people who've been editing this article (some of us for years, some of us with good contributions only recently), trying to improve it. Everyone's just trying to improve the article in the way they feel is best. People need to restrain themselves and not use the word "fanboy" as it implies editing to include a bias, and that's not assuming good faith. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And once again, I need to point out that it doesn't matter if it is true or not, or if you personally know it is true or false, the only thing that matters is that a reliable source reported it. JayKeaton (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This situation came up recently in the RickRoll article. Gawker.com which is usually a reliable source, cited Encyclopedia Dramatica as the source for their article that discussed origin of Rick Rolling and therefore could not be used in the article. As the source in this case is a messageboard, Joystiq and other publications that are saying the same thing will need to say that they have confirmed that it is true, otherwise it is the source article is unreliable. In cases where a source is directly citing an unreliable source there needs to be some sign of fact checking, even if they simply say "we checked this out to be true". Bill (talk|contribs) 18:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"saying "fanboyism running amock in this article" isn't very nice to the people who've been editing this article (some of us for years, some of us with good contributions only recently), trying to improve it." Yeah, like I said elsewhere, I've grown pretty fucking tired of it. And I've only been here for like two months. So please stop that.
But this does get me thinking. Where was it officially stated the the PS3 version ran 720p? — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The matter is now settled, we have enough reliable sources that word it as "confirmed" 640p. JayKeaton (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't post facts from fanboy forums

The statement that Ps3 runs at 640p instead of 720p, as a native resolution, is taken from a fanboy forum. Its not stated by Rockstar or any other official source, so it should be deleted, until its found a reliable source.

If wikipedia was to use sources from forums and people with ideas instead of facts, we could link to a maoist site that claim that USA is a nazi nation, and its true, because a site said so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.194.138 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The reliable gaming press is the source, not a forum. JayKeaton (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This "reliable gaming press site", has taken its info from a forum. No reliable or offical statement is made that it runs on 640p, instead of 720p or 1080p. 83.108.194.138 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if it was taken from a forum, they wouldn't post information like that if it was false, people just can't take the fact the PS3 version runs at 630p. I mean, so what if it does? It's not like it limits the game, if it runs ay 630p so what. Regardless, it should stay that way on the Wiki page. Davek92 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"they wouldn't post information like that if it was false". What's that based on? Did Kotaku count the pixels themselves? Do they in any way have intel that says this is true? It doesn't matter if they usually post reliable info, there's still no goddamn verifiability!
And when are people going to stop rambling on about PS3 fanbois? — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Emil here, its recomended for the reliablity of wikipedia, to have a good source. Therefore, it should be reverted back to the official statement that both run on native 720p. It looks like all this has been put up by 360 fanboys to make a war, its silly. Jørgen88 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean the people who put it up here, because then I'll have to preach on you too. =P — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the source for the official statement? JayKeaton (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's true, they're probably not going to want to admit it, and after having seen GameTrailers' comparison I'm in no doubt that it is. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source has not verified the facts, but it could still be cited. It should be something along the lines of "Some people, in posts to online forums, have claimed that the PS3 version runs at 630P" <source-blah>. It is exactly the same as if a news agency spoke with witnesses to an event. Until they had verified facts they would say "Eyewitnesses claim that...", this could be used as a source in Wikipedia, but a source to the fact that it has been claimed, not that it is true. Cyan Simon (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. And thus we should go with 720p in the infobox, maybe with a link to a paragraph stating what you proposed? — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 23:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but where is the official source saying it is 720p that everyone keeps talking about? JayKeaton (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Until there is an official source for the resolution, I would suggest that it be removed from the infobox (because there is no way to state the nature of the source). It could perhaps be put as a statement in the main article, again stating that it has been claimed on forums. Cyan Simon (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So I take it that there is no official source about the 720p resolution, that someone lied to us about that source. JayKeaton (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is, and there may well be, I am not aware of it and cannot see it in the article. Cyan Simon (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This may be moot now as I'm reading in various publications, such as PC World[19], that it has been "confirmed" as 640p. That's good enough for me. If it is incorrect then it's the fault of those publications, not us. Bill (talk|contribs) 20:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then it is settled, PC World say "confirmed reports" in relation to 640p, so it stays. JayKeaton (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to 83.108.194.138: That comment was absolutely unnecessary. It is immensely degrading to Chinese culture, while at the same time, you got your history wrong. Hitler was Nazi. Mao was Communist. That comment could be taken as an insult, plus it did nothing to help move the discussion forward. Please use more "tame" examples next time. Wikipedia might not be a censor object, but it would be nice if editors wouldn't act like that. --haha169 (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, YHBT. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


If article is in BrE, then "aeroplane", right?

In GTA IV, the player is not able to fly any fixed-wing aircraft.<!-- Please do not replace this with 'airplanes' or 'aeroplanes'. This is a compromise -->

Why? If it's in British English, then we use a British English word, right? Emil Kastberg (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an edit war a few months ago which lead to this discussion where it was decided that invoking the Opportunities for commonality section of WP:ENGVAR would be the best way to avoid conflict. Bill (talk|contribs) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I knew that, I should have said that. And I also take into account that people keep changing the spelling to AmE, but that doesn't counter the fact that the article is written in BrE, uses BrE spelling, grammar, and should use words from same vocabulary. Besides, a word like "Fixed-wing aircraft" is arguably more difficult to understand/interpret for most Americans than "aeroplane". Emil Kastberg (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No one seemed to like my suggestion of using, plain and simply, plane. xenocidic (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "plane", but I think "fixed-wing aircraft" is fine. --Pixelface (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Plane" is kind of too low standard, isn't it? Like I said, if it's in BrE, it should just the BrE word, as it doen't differ much from the American one anyway. Emil Kastberg (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Because, as stated above, an extensive edit war came from it; I feel that fixed-wing aircraft is quite a compromise. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that. That doesn't make it sound less ridiculous IMO. Besides, how about "windscreen"? Many people keep changing that to "windshield", but it is consistently reverted anyhow, and this is no different. An extensive edit war, no matter how recent, is no reason to compromise with people who don't accept what language an article is written in, and "aeroplane" sounds far less unclear to any speaker of English than "fixed-wing aircraft". Emil Kastberg (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed wing aircraft sounds ridiculous! Although since the early days of this page its been noted that its British English, I agree that if people can't settle an alternative should be used. Fixed wing aircraft is stupid. Just say aircraft and link to fixed wing! Chocobogamer (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That won't work either, since you are able to fly helicopters. And should people really have to settle for something when the article was started in British English? Emil Kastberg (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and change it; if warring starts back up, another neutral alternative is gonna be chosen. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, alright then. ;) If it does, I'll accept "fixed-wing aircraft". — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 22:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Whats really wrong with 'plane'? I know its not a strictly formal term, but its the most neutral, everyone will know what you mean and most people in the world say it rather than aeroplane or airliner etc. You can't always be perfectly formal. In fact, if you're going to nitpick plane due to it not being the full term, then you should change every instance of car to motorcar, as thats its correct term!! Chocobogamer (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Tell that to the editors who were warring over the term. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
TBH I don't care what term (thats why I haven't bothered changing it) is used just as long as the edit war stops! It seems logical that if you're going to be fussy over one term then you should be over all. Chocobogamer (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Chocobogamer, relax. There isn't an edit war, I was only arguing to pick one debated word over another such despite a previous edit war. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way Klptyzm, I didn't mean to be a pain in the ass or something (not implying you thought that but just to clear it up as I may have sounded like it). It just really bothered me, even though I knew you guys had had quite a long debate over it very recently (just before I started on this article, as far as I understand): Why the hell all those other words and not this one? It made no sense to me, and I really hope "aeroplane" will be allowed to stay. :) — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that the game is out I don't think there will be any more pissing matches over the 'air/aero'plane word (we're all too busy playing). As a Canadian I'm pretty much in the middle. xenocidic (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you'd be amazed. After a certain incident involving me and two other editors in the past, I've realized anything is possible. A small eye should still be kept on the issure though. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That I'll do. =) I go through every edit that's made to this article. For real. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, this aint a baking circle, the whole spelling of Aero or air, or even fix winged, should only be concrete if the is a reliable source that states it as one of these, and when someone finds it, post the link next to the word.King Cangri (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Until someone else cites it from a source with the alternative spelling. - X201 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue stemmed from sets of editors who felt that one type of English should have been used over another, not whether or not it was used in game. WP:ENGVAR was consulted over this matter, but the same sets of editors continued to war, so a compromise coming from neither variation of English was substituted to quell the warring. In essence, this stemmed from personal conflicts from editors with no direct connection to any type of source. It's rather impossible to source it anyway; how can you source the use of a word of such unimportance? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You could cite ActionTrip ("You cannot fly a plane though.")[20] --Pixelface (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As a Yank who is a serious Anglophile, I've noticed that while most of the material in game is done using AmE, there are a number of phrases and words that have caught me as being seriously out of place Britishisms for a game set in the US. I watch and read quite a bit of media from the UK and so I know a Britishism when I hear or see it, and I've heard or seen several in the game. What's frustrating is that at the moment I can't put my finger on any one word or phrase in particular as an example, but there have been several times I've been playing the game and someone will be talking on the radio or something and I'll be like "hmm, that was an odd choice of words..." As a result, I think the argument that "it's AmE in the game" is kind of off a bit. Try as they might, it is almost inevitable given the ammount of verbage in game there were going to be a few oddities slipping in. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

cars exploding

The section saying cars only explode when shot in the engine block is incorrect. If you shoot enough bullets at the area above the rear tires of the car, ie where the gas tank would be, the car will catch on fire and explode shortly after. Can someone edit this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.2.245 (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for it somewhere? I mean, I could go and test it msyelf this evening by taking pot shots at cars (IN THE GAME!!!) but there needs to be a reference for it, really. Neıl ☎ 11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't Mythbusters find that they couldn't cause a car to explode by shooting the gas tank? Oren0 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but they were talking about in the game. DAVID CAT 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ive shot multiple cars (in game) but like Neil said, you need a reliable source to confim this, and mythbusters shows that as a real life fact, not in game fiction.King Cangri (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They must be MADD...

In the controversy section, MADD is quoted as saying that "Drunk driving is a choice, a violent crime, and it is also 100 percent preventable."

Could someone please add to that section that in GTA4:

"Drunk driving is a choice" - The player can choose whether or not to drive a vehicle while intoxicated. "Drunk driving is a violent crime" - Police will go hostile if the player enters a vehicle while drunk. They will also go hostile if the player crashes into and injures any people while drunk driving. "Drunk driving is 100 percent preventable" - The game warns you not to drive drunk, and even lets you call a cab when inebriated.

I've seen what it looks like to walk, interact and drive drunk in the game, and if anything it can only serve as a deterrent to such activities. Sure, watching it in the game is funny - so is watching a RL drunk stagger across the bar. But the standard level of empathy a normal, healthy human possesses will allow him to quickly realize that this state is not useful, and that your driving ability in such a state is SO bad that it's just counterproductive to play. For 99.99999etc of people who play this game, the drinking is a diversion from the plot, something to laugh at - and anyone who's ever watched a fall-down drunk will know that this happens IRL knows that it IS funny - and then go on with the game. For the remaining fraction of a percent, they're the statistical anomaly present in any sample, and if they can't control themselves because of a video game, then the only ones guilty of anything are his family and friends for not getting him help sooner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.45.24 (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if MADD had played the game rather than heard about it from some concerned parents, they'd actually agree that it's presentation of drunk driving is informative and HELPFUL to their cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.89.217 (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave it how it is. The characterization of drunk driving as a "violent crime" is ludicrous to the point of absurdity, and speaks for itself in terms of the group's credibility. Drunk driving is an extremely dangerous practice, but one cannot label something as a "violent crime" if there is both a) no intention of violence and b) no certainty of violence. That's like saying burglary (which is a very serious crime, but clearly not a violent crime) is a violent crime, because maybe the person will turn out to be home and it will lead to something worse. Hell, by that logic, shoplifting, libel, and even jaywalking are all violent crimes.
So, leave it in and let people see just how sensationalist this group is. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, perhaps that last bit should be removed. It doesn't sound very neutral. 24.79.232.22 (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of a discussion isn't to maintain neutrality, but to analyze viewpoints. Viewpoints are never, by their very nature, neutral. As long as it's not profane or aggressive, let him speak his peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.45.24 (talk • contribs)
Exactly. Wikipedia asks only that we adhere to a neutral point of view in articles. Now, we are also asked not to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, even when discussing in the Talk pages, and that's why I kept my statements brief. However, I stand by what I said: My personal point of view happens to be that MADD's inflammatory statements speak for themselves. There is no need to pollute the article itself with an analysis of MADD's statements, especially because THAT would violate the neutrality policy. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

number of the game

it' not the nine title, it's the number ten:

  1. Gta (also game boy advance version)
  2. gta london 1969
  3. gta london 1961
  4. gta 2
  5. gta 3
  6. gta vice city
  7. gta sant andreas
  8. Liberty City Stories
  9. vice city stories
  10. gta4

we should make a page about Race'n'Chase, the precursor of gta games (made by DMA, AKA Rockstar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.123.13 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion a while ago. Expansion packs aren't counted towards the number of games there have been. If we did, the next edition of The Sims would be The Sims 47 - X201 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be minimal, but don't you think that users not familiar to the "spin-off" system this series uses (Vice City, San Andreas) might believe that this game is called GTA IV simply due to its being the first GTA-game on the fourth generation of consoles?

The above might've been a plausible explanation apart from the fact that the PS3 and XBox 360 are 7th generation consoles. --Vylen (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The 2 'spin offs' as in Vice City and SanAn are still technically part of GTAIII. GTA1 was set in all 3 areas - liberty city, vice city and san andreas. I believe that this is why its called GTAIV. Also technically you could argue that its the 12th title not ninth, as they are classing GTA Advance as a seperate game, not London. Then theres race'n'chase. Its probably fair to leave it as 9 to avoid conflict Chocobogamer (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the fourth generation of consoles GTA has appeared on (Megadrive/SNES/etc, PS1, PS2/XBox, PS3/XBox 360). 79.16, hope it's okay that I reformatted your message so the numbers appeared (much easier to read). Neıl ☎ 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For future reference:

  1. Grand Theft Auto
  2. Grand Theft Auto 2
  3. Grand Theft Auto III
  4. Grand Theft Auto Advance
  5. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
  6. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
  7. Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories
  8. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories
  9. Grand Theft Auto IV

There you go. Nine. It said nine. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 11:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All of you are wrong, it stated on Game Informer, though i dont have a link so someone find it, this game is not in the same universe as GTA 3, furthermore,, it stated that GTA 3, San Andres, Vice City, and the two Stories games are in the GTA 3 Univers and GTA 4 will feature its own plethera of games for the GTA 4 Universe with reccurig characters, much like final fantasy only returning characters from FF10 on X2, and FF7 having all sorts of media for it, as FF13 will, GTA 4 may be the ninth GTA game made, but like i stated, it is a different Universe which explains the non-returning characters, the very few that survived anyways.King Cangri (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned that they're all part of GTA III. But, we're talking about major releases, not storyline. Cavenbame parlez 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Mural Ad Picture

Shouldn't the picture be in the 'Marketing' section? It doesn't really fit in the 'New York Officials' section and I think the 'Marketing' section would be a better place to put it. --NotYouHaha! (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Edge Magazine

In issue 189 of EDGE Magazine they gave the game a ten out of ten. If someone wants to add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.187.232 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As said in the post below, we don't need that many review scores.--NotYouHaha! (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the Edge score is notable as it rarely gives a 10 (I think there was five in ten years up until September). Fin©™ 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Only awarded 9 times in 15 years. - X201 (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently someone already added it =) Fin©™ 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The review table is way to big!

Wikipedia doesn't need to list every review ever made for this game, this isn't Gamerankings. If look at other featured articles: Portal only have 5 reviews in the table, Halo 3 has 8, Devil May Cry 3 has 6. Right now this article has 20 reviews in the table. If I get rid of some ill probably get reverted, but im just saying theres way to many listed. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That does seem a bit excessive; 10 need to be listed at the most. Even that is excessive, though. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Done.Richiekim (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave the review table as it was but add the hide/show option? Now the review table is shorter AND hidden by default. --Pixelface (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck recently did an anti-GTAIV segment. Maybe this should be added to the article? [21] --Jedravent (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've written a summary but I'm posting it here to get opinions on whether people think it belongs in the article. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I suppose some of it could be mentioned in the existing Jack Thompson section. I'm fairly sure the segment aired May 1, 2008. --Pixelface (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck, on his program on CNN's Headline News, said about the game "We are training our kids to be killers, and we are training our sons to treat women like whores." Glenn Beck said the US military have never considered videogames to be harmless fun. Beck spoke of soldiers refusing to shoot their rifles in WWI. Beck said "Senior officers found if they trained the soldiers by putting a human silhouette on the bullseye during target practice, they could actually condition men to shoot more easily. The technology progressed, so did the training techniques. Paper targets evolved into electronic simulations and welcome to the great-great-grandfather of the videogame developed by the Pentagon." Beck said the method was so successful that the firing rate of soldiers who had to shoot another human being for the first time went from 15% in WWII to 55% in the Korean War to over 90% in Vietnam and "now that number is almost one hundred." Beck said the Journal of the American Medical Association said the introduction of television in the 1950s caused a doubling of the homicide rate in America. Beck said "In Grand Theft Auto, your son, or your husband, or your boyfriend, or whoever, can hire a prostitute, have sex with her, and then beat her to death with a baseball bat. When a police officer comes after him, he can either light that police officer on fire or cut him in half with a chainsaw. This is entertainment? As he makes his getaway, Niko can carjack the ride of his choice and drive down a sidewalk mowing down as many pedestrians as he like." Beck said "It took 75 years and countless billions of dollars to train our soldiers to kill. Today, 60 bucks buys your kid the same thing. Whatever happened to Pong?"

In the second segment of the show, Beck spoke to Jack Thompson via satellite, as well as Gavin McKiernan, national grassroots director for the Parents Television Council. Thompson mentioned Devin Moore and said regarding Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City "There's no doubt in my mind [...] that but for Devin Moore's training on this cop killing simulator, he would not have been able to kill three cops in Fayette, Alabama who are now dead and in the ground. We are suing Take Two, Sony, Wal-Mart, and GameStop for having trained Devin Moore to kill. He had no history of violence. No criminal record." Thompson called the game "a murder simulator." He said "What makes the sale of this game a criminal act, which Take Two knows is a criminal act, is the incredible levels of simulated sex in the game. You can go into an adult strip club, have oral and anal sex, S&M between women in the club. And indeed to sell this to a minor [...] is a criminal act." McKiernan said "This is really an adult product we're talking about [...] Thirty years of medical research has shown over and over again in thousands of studies the potential effect for violent media to have on children, on the developing mind as you grow. And common sense tells you and the medical profession has backed up, there is definitely a difference between casually watching a two-hour movie with horrific acts and participating [...] and not for two hours but you can spend seventy or eighty hours on Grand Theft Auto just to finish the game and that's if you're good at it." Thompson said the game should be rated Adults Only, saying "the sex in the game was taken out so it could even be sold to adults in Australia." Thompson said "because Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, so forth will not sell an Adults Only game, the ESRB comes up with a phony rating [...] Therefore it is being sold to teens. This is criminal act which is in violation of 47 states and the federal jurisdiction's laws regarding sexual material harmful to minors."[22][23]

Yes, I think some of this should be included but I think we could shorten the Jack Thompson section to fit it. If we can make the Glen Beck section the same length as what could be chopped off the Jack Thompson section then that will give us the same word count with an extra section, just an idea, I know he's the most vocal opponent of the GTA franchise but I've always thought that Jack Thompson's section in this article was too long. Kurushi (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Another case of conservative christians going off the rails and blaming a game rather then the person who pulled the trigger. People act in ways that seem "out of character" because their character was misunderstood and an underlying problem was unrecognized, undiagnosed and untreated. To blame the game is to accuse people of having no free will, which is just the sort of thing one would expect from these people. They used to blame the devil for this same sort of stuff, but I guess that's too old fashioned, even for them. In my opinion, it doesn't matter. Already people like them are being drowned out by a growing majority that's ready, even eager, to stand up and shout at them to go away. As the size of the percentage of each generation that plays games increases and these conservative nuts grow old and die off, the world is changing. Good luck Glenn and Jack, you're gonna need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.45.24 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Online wont save stats or money

Hey for the ps3 this is true it happened to me and several others. Unfortunatly i dont know how to source info,but its on yahoo answers and on gamespot forums.--Tboneangle (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Fix" for the PS3 lauch crash

I don't have any reference links for this, but I noticed that if you have anything downloading from the Playstation store and you start the GTA4, the game freezes. So finish all your downloads first and start playing after that. This is a common problem with many PS3 games (including PES2008 etc). If it still crashes, reboot your console, login and start playing the game.

--Ahjteam (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more complex. Even you are not using the internet functions the game will freeze. You have to disable the internet functions of the PS3 completely. I have called up Sony but they told me the game is not out in Singapore and as of this they don't care. Follow the 12 points mentioned on Gamespy and you can play the game again. Hope Sony will take this more serious. We should maybe put this into the article that Sony does not care about the problem. In this way there is a little more pressure on Sony to come up with a fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shorty23sin (talk • contribs) 05:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There are Pay 'N Sprays!

In the section titled "Combat and police response" it says "Instead of utilizing Pay 'N Sprays....", however there are Pay 'N Sprays in the game. The difference with them is that when you use one time goes ahead three hours, and if you want to use them to lose your wanted level you have to enter them when there are no cops around to see you go in.

Asheffield (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CNN

Should the CNN section be deleted? It seems all the releveant infomation is covered previously and its completely imcomprehensible 124.176.22.124 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Stealing Cars

It should be noted, breaking into the car and hotwiring it only happens if the door is locked, if it is locked Nikko will begin his breaking into car animation. 71.215.207.1 (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

that is true, but if he hasnt already hotwired it, or if someone what taken out, he will still hotwire it, sacing the window. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Cangri (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. This article will need serious de-fluffing if it wants to achieve FA status. Even though the hotwiring minigame is interesting and new to the series, things shouldn't be mentioned unless it has established notability. The best you could do is possibly use this as an example as one of the new features of the game. --haha169 (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

VGCharts sales numbers are questionable

Anyone who knows the video game industry knows that Vgcharts numbers are just as good as random numbers. That part should be taken out of the introductory paragraph unless someone can provide legitimate numbers (from a source such as NPD for US numbers). Vgcharts is known to be notoriously bad and is often off with many reliable sources for video game and console sales.

68.36.104.196 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I too have often heard that VGCharts is unreliable and sometimes wrong when official figures are released. Reliability aside, I think it's bad form to present the figure in the article as a fact in the way it is, when it is a speculated figure that has been calculated, with no official data out. Even if the reliability was sure it would still be important to make the distinction of "it has brought in at last $.." and "experts calculate the game has brought in at least $..". Bill (talk|contribs) 01:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I also think we should remove this from the intro "Grand Theft Auto IV holds the record for the highest grossing opening day in entertainment history, bringing in at least US$186 million in its first 24 hours, with 2.5 million copies sold in the U.S. and 609,000 sold in the U.K.[13]" It's sourced to vgchartz.com. I don't recall seeing any other source that said 2.5 million copies in the US. I suggest we leave it out until the Associated Press or a print newspaper like The New York Times reports it. And I think those unit numbers should give a gross closer to $198 million. VGChartz apparently didn't factor in that the game costs closer to USD$80 in the UK, not USD$60. --Pixelface (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if it sold 4.2 million worldwide, it would gross more than $252 million (which is based on the global pricepoint of USD$60). --Pixelface (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PC version

Not good enough for being on the article yet I guess, but see here PC version release date leaked for a very interesting tidbit. Ingolfson (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, here's the direct link too [24]. Ingolfson (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA

The article is tagged with a current event, and looking at even just today's history, is clearly unstable. Several edits have been undone. Wait a few days until the number and quality of edits dies down. Even this talk page is constantly being added to. Peanut4 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Prostitutes

Is there any mention that you can get different services (hand job, blowjob, sex) from prostitutes at different costs? The Vandal Warrior (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, and apparently their are exclusive ones aswell like Lola in the game, I would add it, but my changes usally meet with mixed feelings on this page. --Elven6 (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll add it soon. I can't now, because I've only been on wikipedia for 3 days. The Vandal Warrior (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done The Vandal Warrior (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah 20 bucks 50 bucks 70 bucks to get them in your car just honk your horn .you just need to find somewere nice and darkCadreettombre (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know of any hotspots? (this isn't an FAQ for GTA IV, because I might add this to the article) The Vandal Warrior (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't extremely relevant, i.e. there isn't some "prostitute-ville" type area just streaming with prostitutes, then no info regarding "hotspots" should be added at all. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Vandalised

The article has been vandalised and needs to be replaced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.102.254 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC) yer who keep doing it?--Foylepher (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows That it was you so im sure everyone here would be apreacitave if u just left--Butters0422 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh????

It seems as though something has happened to the multiplayer section. StaticGull  Talk  13:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? What do you mean by "something has happened"? .:Alex:. 14:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's returned back to normal now. At one point the multiplayer section was located at the bottom in "nowiki"-markup. StaticGull  Talk  11:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vs. Iron Man

I think we should take out the comments about it taking away from Iron Man's box office considering Iron Man just made 107 million in the United States alone making it the second highest opening for a non-sequel next to Spider-man.A.S. Williams (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps if GTA IV wasn't in the picture, it would've beat spiderman. xenocidic (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this talk about "Iron Man vs. GTA4" is just ridiculous. It seems to me that anyone who is a fan of both will simply pay for both in the same weekend - as did a friend of mine. People exist in enough dimensions that one can buy a game, play it for a few hours, and then go see a movie, just as we did. It's not like the game won't still be there 2 hours later, as any reasonable person would easily understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.45.24 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Can someone do it because this is getting to long. . . . 192.136.15.130 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought someone did, but I reverted it because they removed discussions that weren't finished. I said in the edit summary to do it again but leave the fresh ones, but I guess they didn't pay attention. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
checkY Done. I didn't check to see how the previous archival was done, but I archived everything that was before 1 May, as well as a few that looked done on that date. If there's archived discussions that you think should stay here, or vice versa, please take care of those individually. The archival didn't seem to make the page any shorter, unfortunately. /Carson 01:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited GTA IV version

Does anyone know what features are cut? Becasue this may be my only ticket on getting GTA IV. By the way I'm not some 9-year old or some teen that gets so involved with fantasy and real life I'm going to go kill somebody.68.145.77.173 (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15
  1. ^ Grand Theft Auto IV (PS3). New York City: Rockstar Games. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |date2= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV/Archive_11&oldid=1136274709"