Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Grand Theft Auto clone has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Video games (Rated A-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Grand Theft Auto task force.
 
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.


Additional research[edit]

Just flagging a few articles that talk about GTA-style games and make observations about them:

i. 2006-07-28. "PALGN - Saint's Row Preview". PALGN. Retrieved 2008-07-24. 
ii. Steven Hopper (2005-01-25). "Mercenaries Review". Game Zone. Retrieved 2008-07-24. 
iii. Alex Navarro (2003-09-15). "Review - Simpsons Hit and Run". GameSpot. Retrieved 2008-07-24. 
iv. John Gaudiosi (2006-05-12). "'Parallel Lines': Put It in Drive". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-24. 

Don't want to lose these, just in case. Randomran (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

spot check[edit]

Are there any glaring omissions or inaccuracies in this article? Everything is pretty well sourced, so I'm pretty sure it's accurate. And I've had a hard time tracking down other sources. But perhaps bigger fans of the genre have some thoughts. Backing everything up with research is tough. Randomran (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a good read and I don't see anything missing or wrong. Everything I could think of that should be noted is in there. Excellent work. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also read this article (twice)and everything that needs to be put in the article is in there and nothing is incorrect or incoharent, so good work. HairyPerry 13:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a relief. Thanks a lot for checking in, guys. Randomran (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Its no problem, if you need me to spot check anything else for you, I will be happy to assist in anyway possible. See ya around and Happy Editing, HairyPerry 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fail: This article is not even reasonably well written. The prose is confusing and there are many grammatical errors. The article's definition of what is a "Grand Theft Auto clone" is confusing. A better definition might be: "A Grand Theft Auto clone is a video game featuring gameplay similar to that made famous by Grand Theft Auto III." There is a history section yet the "Genre name" section also covers history. The article goes off-topic. It goes from talking about what a GTA clone is to talking about a genre of video game in the "Gameplay" section. The "Origin" section is especially confusing: "Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto III is often credited with pioneering a game genre in 2001."—that is how that section starts. And the "Recent history" section talks about the development of the GTA series. I even dispute whether or not "Grand Theft Auto clone" is even a true video game term.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a fair review, particularly where you suggest that this isn't even a real term. If you read the references, you'll see that "grand theft auto clone" is used pervasively. Have you taken the time to see that the article is verified? My understanding was that a good article review was supposed to offer constructive criticism that would help resolve small grammatical and wording issues. I'm not sure how the "genre name" covers history, except to the extent that it has to explain how the term originated. I'm also unclear on how you are supposed to talk about what a GTA clone is without talking about what kind of gameplay the genre offers. Perhaps you can clarify, or offer more constructive feedback that would allow editors to resolve the issues you perceive. Randomran (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This review was not conducted properly - and I think with an external links section and a more elaborate reviewer, we could get this article past GA. Note to the Reviewer - A very easy way to review would be to divide the review into sections (of the article) and leave bullet points noting points which need fixing in each said section. --haha169 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

moving forward[edit]

Apparently there are some issues with the prose and organization. There are grammatical errors, off-topic statements, and otherwise confusing statements. I'm hoping that other editors can check in and help identify these issues, so we can improve this article further. Randomran (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

Having read (#1) Grand Theft Auto clone, (#2) Grand Theft Auto and (#3) Wikia's GTA Clone. With that I have the following suggestions:

  • I would lead the opening to follow #3, as they go down the path of "a game that emulates, or has gameplay elements similar to the Grand Theft Auto series... ...Specifically, a GTA clone is typically an action sandbox video game that usually contains a large free-roaming map that can be explored on foot or in a vehicle, with mission and side-missions displayed on a mini-map for the player."
I can not seem to find any credible, reliable sources to support the claim of a genre.
  • The intro is very unstable, darting off on several topics. There is not a consistent tone or flow. Topics do not seem to lead into one and other.
"The genre also draws upon open world level design concepts from 1980s games such as Metroid." this is just out of the blue (I see its referencing the later paragraph that will expand on this, but maybe that is where it belongs).
There are no citations or references in the intro. When you are trying to establish the article's notability, we need to see RS.
  • The gameplay section... "Grand Theft Auto clones are a type of 3D action-adventure game, where players are given the ability to drive any vehicle or fire any weapon as they explore an open world. These games often incorporate violent and criminal themes, although games such as The Simpsons Hit & Run are considered more tame." is sourced, but lacks the flow. We are at the first section of the article and I feel like things have been repeated.
When you say "These games are often incorporate violent and criminal themes..." and then go on to say "...although games such as The Simpsons Hit & Run are considered more tame." arent we talking about the same type of games? Are they the same genre or not?
  • The more I read the more unfocused the article becomes. We quickly get into "some do this and some do that" all throughout paragraphs.
  • "Grand Theft Auto clones allow players to freely explore the game world,[3] which is typically on the scale of an entire city.[12]" These generalities are just that, not facts just general things the writer has decided. This fueled me to check out the source to see if it had done some study or research to prove that this "is typically on the scale of an entire city.". When I followed the link it lead me to a 404 :(
  • I would very much agree that "The citation scheme is, shall we say... unique.", but that is your choice.

Now this is my opinion and I hope you take this as constructive criticism, as I do not wish for you to take any of this personal. I would say, take a step back and try to develop the clear points that distinguish this genre and what denotes its' notability, keeping far away from "some have this and some do that...". Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's definition (first sentence) epitomizes everything that is wrong with this article. 1) You do not use the word "refers" or any other similar-meaning word, such as "describes", when defining the article. Ex: Blue refers to a color. Wrong. Blue is a color. 2) A "Grand Theft Auto clone" is not a "genre". 3) Do not assume that the reader knows what you are talking about. Say "video game", not just "game", and link it like I have done. I hope these three tips will help you to see the faults in this article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Matthew Yeager. Your comments are much more clear. I appreciate that this article hasn't reached GA status, but the comments from User:Tj terrorible1 were not enough to identify the serious issues that are alleged to exist. I'll get to work on it, either way. Randomran (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't these just called sandbox-style video games? Does this really need its own section? If we can't have a list of GTA Clones because there are no games that are GTA Clones why bother having a wikipage called GTA Clones? 198.53.97.174 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASSESSMENT[edit]

  • I'd suggest a move in language from the 'usually' and 'often', as well as dubious statements that I doubt are attributable to any source, save for gross violation of WP:SYNTH, to more general statements like 'typically'. The current article uses many vague terms (for example, citation 21 and what is supposedly supported by it), and presents this as something that might or might not be true. Rather, present it as something that is the norm for this kind of game (supported with sources), and give examples of (extreme) deviations. Check the article for terms like 'often', 'usually' and 'some' and try to improve the prose there.
  • Last few words of the lead: 'critical' is ambiguous.
  • Gameplay needs a much more general introduction first. Currently, it assumes everyone reads and understands what's meant by the general term 'action adventure game' in the lead first, and discusses specifics. Before going into vehicles, you need some kind of 'you're this guy in this world and you need to do this mission' kind of discussion.
  • I think something else that's missing is an in-depth discussion of the setting. The "gansta" part of it is actually significant, as is evident from the last paragraph of the article. What's so funny about being a "gangsta"? How do the different settings compare? Are there any peculiar or exceptional games in this sense?
  • Second to last sentence of history: don't use the rankings of Game Rankings, only use the aggregate scores for games themselves (not applicable here). This is by long standing consensus in WP:VG that Game Rankings scores are not comparable between games and through time.
  • The article has a major lack of actual comparison of games in the genre. As I understand it, there's relatively few well known games here, and I'd like to see more analysis of them.

B-class is appropriate for this article. User:Krator (t c) 19:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, and get rid of the word famous in the first sentence.

Thanks for the assessment. I agree the article needs improvement, and I appreciate having a bit more guidance as to how to move forward. Randomran (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GTA Clone?[edit]

GTA clone? Well there have been plenty of them have'nt there. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues[edit]

Although this article is B-class, there are small neutrality issues pertained within it. I'll run over them and we'll see what needs to be done.

Lead section
Despite the fact that I already mentioned this, it has been ignored. I am talking about the opening line, 'Grand Theft Auto clone is a genre of action adventure video games epitomized by the Grand Theft Auto series'. I think the issue is plain obvious: the is a genre and epitomized by words. This, through original research and opinion, generalises the so-called "genre". A GTA clone is NOT an official term/genre and never will be, it is simply flagged by members of the GTA community and game reviewers. The line should read The term Grand Theft Auto clone generalises a genre of action adventure video game which draw similarities with the Grand Theft Auto series, or something to that effect.

Recent history
Another issue is the last few lines which talk about GTA IV. Quite biased I think, it's really quite amazing nobody bothered to rewrite them. 'Grand Theft Auto IV from 2008 refined the formula from prior games with unprecedented detail'. Refining the formula from prior games? How was the formula refined? GTA IV is still very similar in feel to most sandbox games ie GTA: San Andreas and even if it is the best sandbox game, nothing has been "refined". Saints Row 2 and The Godfather II were released after GTA IV and yet beared little stylistic influences from it. The statement refined the formula [..] with unprecedented detail is redundant and debatable. Sure, GTA IV may have been a good game but consider the fact that Saints Row, Crackdown, The Godfather and Scarface were, in respective order, the first sandbox games in seventh-gen and were the true "refiner-s" of the sandbox genre.

Take my points into considerations and express your thoughts, VG Editor (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

e.g. "We also wanted to limit the list to the best games in the genre" bridies (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The article recently passed its GA review. Not to say it's ever perfect. There's room for improvement. But you're ignoring the numerous games that refer to the Grand Theft Auto clone as a genre, and many others that refer to Grand Theft Auto creating/popularizing a genre. That's a non-issue. The praise for GTA IV may be a little sloppy, and I'd be willing to find a better way to sum up why GTA IV was so darn successful. But I'm mostly going on the perfect 10 score given to GTA IV by IGN. [1] I haven't so much as played the game, and I'll admit I wrote this article, so there's no bias on my part. I really am just repeating what reviewers are saying about the game, and game journalists do have a pretty big hard on for this game. Randomran (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Life Before 3D?[edit]

I notice this article seems to ignore the entire universe before 1998. I threw in a few mentions (where there were refs) for some much older 3D stuff consistent with the genre as defined in the articles, but one thing that isn't well established is the extent to which 3D is a defining trait. It's assumed throughout the article that 2D is irrelevant, even going as far as to exclude Grand Theft Auto 1&2 from the genre, referring to them as "influences" only.

What's the basis for this? I don't understand how this is established in the article. There are no refs at all in the intro. Conceptually the article seems problematic, and there's a really pronounced American bias and console bias as well. Am I missing something? This just went under GA review so I assume there must be something I'm overlooking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.113.35 (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A-class assessment[edit]

Leaning towards support, but there's one thing sticking out to me. In the references, such as #36 and #37, there are a few that are just raw links. Really this is the only qualm I have with the article. Other than that, is it possible to put any further information into the Game Informer reference at #42?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't support. The complete lack of any citation in the intro really should have disqualified this from even reaching GA, and it's still a bit myopic in terms of how it frames and applies definitions. Also, the history part was really weak. Despite a bit of work to soften the heavy American bias, I still think it needs a lot of work. Until recently it really acted like the games just came from a vacuum. Frogacuda (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I dunno where Randomran has got to, but I fixed the bare citations, which were added by someone else after the GA review. I don't really know what the Game Informer citation is actually saying, although I'm guessing "138" is the issue no. and "73" is the page no. No idea what the bold "1" is. Perhaps we should just remove it. bridies (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I support (I have only been involved in minor copy-editing). I disagree there is or was any US bias and if anything Frogacuda's additions of "Scottish-developed", "English-developed" place undue weight on that aspect. In what way is it "myopic" and "really weak" exactly? Also note that citations are not necessarily required in the lead (see WP:LEAD). bridies (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, frankly, it's really an extension of an overwhelmingly British genre that existed for 10 years before GTA1 came out. All these vehicular sandbox action adventure games like Mercenary, Starglider 2, Midwindter 1 and 2, Damocles, Hunter... all British games, all 3D, featuring most of the defining characteristics like commandeering vehicles, free-form mission, shooting, etc, but without the crime theme. Then Driver and GTA (also British games) blew up big in America and marked this major turning point for American developers embracing this style of design (when traditionally they didn't, apart from Terminator, and maybe Privateer, both made by European directors who relocated to American companies). The only truly American game I can think of that was really embracing sandbox game design was Echelon, and that was pretty much an Elite clone.
So I don't think the weight is undue. I think the weight reflects a factual reality of how the genre emerged that was being oddly avoided before. I'm an American, so this has nothing to do with my personal biases or experiences, it's just a reality of game history that these games were overwhelmingly British until after GTA3's commercial breakthrough.
The other issue is that there's really too much about the GTA series and not enough about the growth of the genre as a whole, including innovations and developments outside of the series. The lack of any acknowledgment of 2D games and the exclusion of the first two GTAs from serious discussion except as an "influence" is, as far as I can tell, without real justification... I know it's a hard subject and a moderately young genre as far as recognition and discussion/analysis goes, but this isn't an A article yet.Frogacuda (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
We go with what the sources say and I disagree that the secondary research shares your concern about giving UK developers their due. This is reflected in the article's sourcing which in my opinion reflects the overall balance of secondary research. I don't see why it's so necessary to discern between UK or European developers and US one's; for example they cater to gamers with the same predilictions. It's not like the West vs. Japan which is a divide in which the gaming press is much more interested. The prominence the article gives to the GTA series (particularly after the third instalment) again reflects the weight of available secondary sources. So many of the sources state that the series gave rise to the whole genre, whether or not the actually call it "GTA clone" and it is by far and away the most successful. Comparitively few sources attempt to trace it back to Terminator, or Hunter, or even the original GTA. bridies (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"I don't see why it's so necessary to discern between UK or European developers and US one's; for example they cater to gamers with the same predilictions." This is just pure crazy talk. How can you even make that claim? European game design in the 80s (and ESPECIALLY 3D game design) is very different from American game design, which I would attribute largely to the much higher popularity of computer platforms across the continent than in the US. Euro games often had novels packed with them and hundred page manuals and were much more complex, involved experiences, which was generally more acceptable on computers than on consoles. I think you could easily argue that Euro and NA gaming was as different or more different than NA and Japanese game design in the 80s and early '90s. In fact, since Japanese consoles were very popular here (while dominant Euro platforms like Amiga, Spectrum, and Amstrad were not so popular here), American games at the time were often imitating Japanese genres. Sit down and read some old European magazines from the '80s like CV+G or Zzap, and you'll realize just how deep the divide is. Granted in 2009, the East/West gap is more meaningful, but back then all three regions were very different.
"Comparitively few sources attempt to trace it back to Terminator, or Hunter, or even the original GTA." Comparitively few sources even address the concept of the genre having an origin, but that doesn't mean the consensus is that it materialized from thin air. Since GTA3 was the mainstream commercial breakthrough, a lot of media is going to start the discussion there, but if you think that's an excuse to ignore history, you're nuts. Mentions of those games ARE sourced, and articles that ignore the very notion of influences on these games don't contradict that, they're just written from a place of ignorance. I think the Eurogamer article that is sourced is very good and guess what? It mentions a dozen or so games all from the UK.
You're hiding behind the notion of consensus here in a way that distorts the intention of Wiki's standards. Wiki does not condone the perpetuation of myths just because they are popular. I can find 100 sources that say Super Mario Bros is the first scrolling platformer, or that the founders of Treasure worked on Castlevania, but these things aren't true. Willful parroting of obvious misconceptions (and the notion that ANY game existed without influence is a misconception) in light of verifiable research to the contrary isn't going to help an article improve. Frogacuda (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, what you "would attribute" or what you "think you could easily argue" is moot. There is zero point in making these claims unless you can directly back them up with sources. Yes, if earlier games in the (proto-)genre can be sourced then they may warrant a mention, but still it is inarguable that there is far greater third party discussion on the GTA series and thus the article should reflect this per WP:UNDUE. Finally, your last paragraph is just wrong: like it or not, Wikipedia's policy is explicitly "verifiability, not truth". bridies (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The claims are sourced and verifiable, but my issue here is that you seem to be claiming that because the number of articles on the subject (origins of open-world 3D action adventures) is limited that somehow the "consensus" is that they don't exist. If I'm doing an article on a football player and I have 100 articles on his career and only 5 on his childhood, it does not mean that the consensus is that he didn't have a childhood. If the popular consensus contradicted these claims, it'd be another matter, but that's simply not the case. Frogacuda (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not claiming they don't exist, simply that their coverage pales in comparison to that of the GTA series and therefore the article should reflect that. If you are claiming that Game X is an important GTA clone/crime action game/driving-shooting game/whatever and is not represented in the article at all, then again it is pointless to make that claim unless you can back it up. Your childhood analogy is crap: there's a difference between the biological life of a person and subjective criticism. However, let's have a look at an FA on a football player shall we? There's 2 or 3 paragraphs on his early life and 11 on his career (13 if you count the "style of play" section). More than half of those, at 6 paragraphs, cover his career at Manchester United, where he spent the longest and was most successful. Do you see what I'm getting at here? bridies (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No one is arguing that these earlier games should get more discussion than the later ones, but if you're going to discuss the "childhood" of this genre, you should actually look at articles that address that issue and reflect what they say rather than finding articles that ignore it completely and putting it under a heading called "Origins." The issue here isn't really that there's controversy due to "subjective analysis." It's that articles either talk about it or they don't.
I mean really, it's already an article based on a rapidly declining term (GTA Clone) that probably wouldn't exist if the "Sandbox game" article wasn't deleted. The extent to which any genre of "clones" can really be discussed productively is limited, and use of the term is fading fast. If this article is going to be stable and last, it's going to need to actually treat it like a real genre and discuss influences and mechanics. And even then, it's questionable.Frogacuda (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. bridies (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
How would any of that qualify as OR? A moment ago you wanted to make it an A article and now you're claiming sourced claims on mainstream sites are OR because "not many people talk about them?" But then defining the genre as 3D despite NO SOURCING to that effect isn't OR? Whatever, dude, I don't think you really read these things you link to.
Do it right or don't do it, I say. It took me 5 minutes on google to find some info on the genre's origins and redo that section, and I'm sure you could find 10 times more if you googled the right names or leafed through some old magazines. I'm done trying to help. Have fun patting yourself on the back for more lazy, half-finished articles. Frogacuda (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
So where are these sources? In the article? Then what's the problem? Otherwise, I'm referring to your constant "Oh, this genre is clearly an extension of Game XYZ, produced by a company in Inverness in 1984, and I bet if you took some old Zzap magazines and made enough original conjecture and synthesis, you could totally make an argument that this is the case. No, I'm not going to back this up at all, but popular consensus dictates that this is the case, you're suppressing the truth and propagating a myth grrr. Its outrageous that the article does not mention this game and therefore the article is indefinably myopic and fails to elucidate historical definitions and frame the mechanics and whatsits am I being verbose enough..." I think you haven't read them (hey, care to address that whole "verifiability, not truth" thing?) If you had looked up how to write out a citation this article wouldn't have had any objections from anyone else ;) Yeah I'm sure those sources are out there. Just like the ones you insisted could be insterted into the third-person shooter article and which never materialised. bridies (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, dude, I have a job, I can't do everything myself. I got hit with a moved deadline when I was working on the TPS thing. Why don't you google "Elite" or "Mercenary" and "open-world game" and see what you find for me. Oh and check the cover story for Retro Gamer issue 47, because I remember that mentioning it as an ancestor to sandbox games explicitly, I just can't find my issue right now. Take a little pride in adding info and not just deleting. Even secondary research takes some real legwork, and I think that might be what you're struggling with.Frogacuda (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that's why I have 10 GAs, cause I struggle with research and just delete stuff. I'm not running around chasing up your theories, the burden of proof is on you to back them up. I already stated I support the article in its current state. Also not this article is "GTA clone" and "open-world game" redirects to Nonlinear gameplay. bridies (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you want a gold star (GA) or do you actually want to write a good article and educate people about game history? It's on you, I'm done. I personally don't understand why you would waste your time on this if you didn't think game history is important, but I guess I'm wrong. I understand the need to verify things, and I have verified what I've added to the article, and I barely started. Anyway, I can't fight with someone who doesn't take pride in their work. Have fun, enjoy your gold star. I have an article of my own to finish.Frogacuda (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Grand Theft Auto clones[edit]

I just removed this section and I can see that it has been removed and re-added quite frequently. There is no way a section like this could be justified. For one, there was not one single reference. Also, listing a game as a clone is very bold and could stir up controversy as there is no "formula" for a GTA clone. VG Editor (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine as a separate list article, following the format we have for other genre articles/lists. In order to "list" a game as a "GTA clone" one must have a reliable source stating that it is a "GTA clone". I agree it shouldn't be in this article though, per WP:EMBED and given the lack of references, WP:V. bridies (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I just came here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_video_games#By_genre clicking on the list of GTA clones link, and was kind of disappointed to see that it has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.50.216 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Mafia really a GTA clone?[edit]

The only basic ideas it shares are driving around in an open city, the structure of the game is nearly totally different as it follows a linear story driven path and is designed more around purpose built levels as set pieces rather than generic missions set in the overworld, then given it's release it likely began development at least a year before Grand Theft Auto 3 came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.182.57 (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100 percent, since Mafia was never meant to be a GTA clone and it was never influenced by GTA. I wouldn't call it a "Grand Theft Auto" clone. Do you need any references?
Check this out! --->
June 15, 2000 (Interview with Daniel Vavra, the writer and director of Mafia) -- http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/article_28016
Sep 12, 2000 (Mafia Details) -- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/mafia/news.html?sid=2627418&mode=news
(46 screenshots showing open-world environment, third-person camera, cars, racing, shooting, etc. Grand Theft Auto III was released in 2002, Mafia's development started at least one year earlier compared to GTA III)
Jan 3, 2001 (New Mafia Screens) -- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/mafia/news.html?sid=2670102&mode=news
(it says "Mafia is scheduled for release at the end of April [2001]" and Grand Theft Auto III was released in October 22, 2001, so GTA III was scheduled to be released five months later compared to Mafia)
Sep 12, 2000 (Mafia Developer Diary) -- http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/mafia/news.html?sid=2784078&mode=news
(Mafia was originally planed to be released in fall 2001 same time as GTA III, but it was delayed to 2002 -- The publisher did not provide a reason for the delay)

I tried to remove Mafia from the wiki page, but someone re-edited my thing. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.226.215 (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

GamesRadar called it a GTA clone. See the reference in the article. That said, it didn't say anything good about it so I'm not sure it needs a mention here. bridies (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It only says "sorry PC guys, but the console versions sucked". That's NOT a reliable source, it's not trustworthy, it's not credible, it's way too subjective. At least in this case, Mafia hasn't emulated anything from Grand Theft Auto III, and I think that Mafia should be removed from the wiki page.
GamesRadar is a reliable source. bridies (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
GamesRadar is a reliable source, but this article in particular says nothing about this game. That's a fact.
How can you claim that Mafia has emulated something, when that "reliable" source says nothing about this game. There isn't anything like that in the internet.
So now, I've mentioned a significant number of "reliable" sources [above] and I think that's fair enough to not call this game a Grand Theft Auto clone, especially because that doesn't seem quite possible given the development period and the gameplay structure of both games.
You guys, really should remove this game from the wiki page because this is the right thing to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.227.70 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It says that it is part of the "genre" of "Grand Theft Auto clones". The sources you provided don't say that it is not a GTA clones, so that is moot. bridies (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I never really heard people call Mafia a GTA clone. Anyone who's actually played Mafia knows that the two aren't that similar at all. The only thing they share is driving in a city. That's where all similarities cease to exist. The actual design is vastly different. Mafia is a wholly linear game in which the city is only there for immersion/atmosphere purposes. It is an empty shell devoid of any activity other then the linear story progression. Mafia is also a much more realistic game whereas Grand Theft Auto leans much more on the arcade side. "Clone" is a strong word when you're talking about games like these. GTA is mindless fun whereas Mafia is far more cohesive and much more meaningful.
I really think the reason you do this is because it has the "criminal sandbox game" thing. Besides people like to make it seem that GTA games are the best ever so anything that remotely compares to it must be a clone. Besides it's just ridiculous that GamesRadar put Mafia on its list of GTA clones, but this website claims that Mafia II is not a GTA clone -- http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/mafia-ii/preview/mafia-ii-updated-impressions/a-2009100111493956084/g-2007082111555365089 (it says "First off, this isn’t a GTA clone. It may have a crime theme, and have a limited amount of free-roaming, but it’s first and foremost a linear, story-driven experience.)"
Then again, you guys, really should remove this game from the wiki page because this is the right thing to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.229.179 (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed it per the second GamesRadar article. bridies (talk) 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mafia has been compared to GTA III, does that necessarily make it a GTA clone? The game was well received by critics and gamers upon release as a more realistic and serious Grand Theft Auto-styled game. Such was the realism that unless a mission was timed, many found that actually obeying the road rules proved to be preferable to speeding, as the latter would more likely result in accidents and injuries. Mafia contains a much bigger city to explore than most video games of the time, with multiple forms of available transport in addition to an expansive countryside. IGN gave the game a rating of 9.2/10[1] while GameSpot described the PC version as "one of the best games of the year". and rated it at 9.3/10.[2] Game Informer compared it favorably to Grand Theft Auto III, and said, "From the living city in which you reside, to the incredibly realistic vehicles, this title has the heart and soul of a blockbuster".[3]

Just awful[edit]

The article looks like written by fanboys who are completely in denial with the definition of "genre". "GTA Clone" is certainly not a genre. "3rd person open world action game" would at least be less "full of shit".

There is no article on "Doom Clone", gee, I wonder why. Surely every game featuring guns, blood, and rooms must be a Doom clone by this article's logic.

Your spelling is just awful. bridies (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not the issue here.
i completely agree with this. A: so what is the genre of GTA 5 again? B: it's gta clone. -- Making it as an official genre name :is just too sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.165.254 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article here? utterly useless, biased. etc. 220.244.249.91 (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article points out that "other efforts to name and define the genre have been rare and inconsistent" - if that's incorrect, is there a better name for the genre? Or are people suggesting that the "walk and drive around an open world shooting people" genre doesn't exist in any meaningfully recognised sense, and it's unreasonable to group games together like this? --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That sentence seems to be a WP:SYNTH violation should probably be removed, but going by the secondary research is pretty much correct. There are loads of terms for this genre but GTA clone is the only one with any real consistency. bridies (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would just go by the genre sandbox or open world game --Roman3 (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

4 years, and this embarrassment of an article is still here? It reads like an advertisement from the title onwards. And it is the ONLY page linked under the sub-genres of the action video game series on Wikipedia to reference a genre as "clone", sticking out like a sore thumb. RainbowDashite (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a term used by the industry. Blame the industry for not coming up with something better to replace it. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
'Graphics Whore' is also a term used by the industry, so why is there no article on that?, on your logic, there should be. This ignorant article should be removed. 121.216.131.3 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
What sources talk about "Graphic Whores" are minimial in terms of being reliable sources. As such, that would be classified as a neologism and thus improper. "Grand Theft Auto clone" is well-sourced to reliable sources and thus appropriate. --MASEM (t) 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Urban Chaos clone[edit]

Urban Chaos has all the elements that compose a "3d-free-roaming-3th-person-carjacking-shooter" and it was launched in 1999, two years before GTA3. All the games who are said to be cloning GTA are in reality cloning Urban Chaos and GTA3 was itself a Urban Chaos clone too, thus I argue that for the sake of accuracy and objectivity this page should be renamed Urban Chaos clone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.30.15 (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

GTA is not a genre[edit]

The entire article has only 3 citations that argue that the GTA series established a new genre of video games and 2 of them are to extremally informal and unreliable video games news websites and the other one is to an BBC article about piracy whose statements do not match the view of this article and in fact doesn't even mention anything related to a supposed "GTA Clone" genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.97.194.223 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The term is well established as a genre - there just aren't many direct sources that track how it became called such. But there's no denying that there exists the genre of "GTA Clone" used by reliable sources to discuss games that follow the GTA pattern. (And spot checking the references, they are all reliable sources determined by the video game project. --MASEM (t) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, the article does presently point out that GTA didn't "create" the genre (Blood Money and other games had features like this), but that with GTA3, the genre was formally popularized by how GTA3 did it. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A 'clone' is not a genre[edit]

Grand Theft Auto Clone' is not a genre, and it should not be considered one, it is an ignorant term that game critics use so they don't have to give other open world games which contain vehicles, weapons and cities a higher score. The logic of this page means we should have pages such as 'Doom Clones' and 'Mario Clones', both Grand Theft Auto and other open world sandbox games which contain driving and combat belong in the open world genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.131.3 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is clear that while GTA and variants are "sandbox games" which are a genre, the specific elements that these games all take up (the criminal aspect, driving, etc.) make it too far from what sandbox games are. Doom clones were once called "doom clones" but since are now "FPS"; Mario clones are now platform games. There is no equivalent genre otherwise for GTA clones. "GTA Clone" is an industry supported term.
Also please note: you cannot keep replacing the PROD tag. If you think this should be deleted, the only next allowable step is to nominate this for deletion at AFD. Replacing the tag will get you blocked for edit warring. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).