Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV

---

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] Cavenba^{me 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)

360 GTA IV not region free

"We know that some people are planning to import GTA IV due to the game being edited in some parts of the world. However, if you are one of those people planning on doing so we’d advise you not to import the PAL version 360 release of the game as it as been confirmed it is not region free. So, if you happen to have it pre-ordered somewhere we advise run and cancel that right now.

Please note the US version of the game could be different, as a few games released in the US have been region free while the Euro one was locked. However, no details on that version are known as of yet."

http://darkzero.co.uk/game-news/360-gta-iv-not-region-free/

Denzelio (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

DLC on Xbox 360 "pricing" speculation

From the section on Xbox 360 DLC, this appears;

"Details on the pricing of these downloads have not yet been revealed, though it would almost certainly not be released for free, as Take-Two Interactive's former CEO, Paul Eibeler, has said numerous times that these downloads would provide "additional revenue streams" to the company[citation needed]"

Does anyone have a citation? Wageslave (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity comedians?

I've been reading about rumors of famous comedians like Katt Williams doing performances at the comedy clubs throughout Liberty City. It wouldn't surprise me that this information is floating around seeing as to how the game's been leaked. Is there anyway to confirm it and if I find a valid source, could i post it? -D Deadeyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.181.84 (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's mention of the comedy clubs in the gameplay section so you could tag it on the end of that. This [2] will do a a starting source, but the more the better. - X201 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just realised, the article is locked to IP users so you won't be able to add it yourself. But post it here and one of the regulars will do the honours for you. - X201 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ricky Gervais is on it, specifically on the TV, but I have no evidence as such as I saw it on a live feed (I couldn't resist (Clarkey4boro (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)).

I just found a link with video of Katt Williams on GTAIV. Perhaps this could be considered a valid source. http://www.dead-frog.com/blog/entry/katt_williams_also_playing_liberty_citys_split_sides_in_gta_iv/ -D Deadeyes

IGN review

anyone else think that it should be shown as 10.0 instead of 10? if not, people might think ign think really it's a 9.5 but have to round up.

ign is a publication which gives 9.7 and 9.8, rather than just 8/10 or 9/10. i just think it should be differentiated to reflect that this really is a perfect score, rather than a rounded-off 10/10. Autonova (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Response -- Why? You can't have 10.5 out of 10, you can have 0.5/10 but not 10.5/10 It's just not how their ranking system works, the decimal point may be removed since it's meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.5.42 (talk)

I agree with the Anon IP, I don't see why people would think it is rounded off. Besides, IGN gave the review "10", not "10.0". Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the information plate on the front of Edge's reviews section "1=One, 2=Two, 3=Three" .... "10 = Ten" - X201 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

People would think it's rounded off because OXM and IGN gave it perfect 10s, yet OXM dont do decimal places, ign do, and there's no way to tell this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonova (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ign's offical number was 10.0, read the review

All other games on Wiki have had it as "10.0/10", besides, it makes it look way more impressive, so go for it. --nlitement ^[talk] 09:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

GAMESPOT REVIEW HAS NOT YET BEEN PUBLISHED. 9.5 WITH UNSPECIFIED CITATION? CLARIFICATION PERHAPS?

Gamespot has already put the review up, why da' hell is this page locked? hurry up you white hill billie's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.19.132 (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Edition Box Art

Isn't [3] & [4] the Special Edition Box Art?

I'm pretty sure they are.

yeah they are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Special Edition section notes: "Both versions have identical box art." This should be removed and pictures of the real special edition box should be shown if possible.--NotYouHaha! (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't beat me with sticks but...

What do people think about this part of the IGN review? I think it's notable for the article because of the fierce rivalry and the fact that the game was developed on the 360 so it's quite unexpected.

For those wanting to know which version looks better, the edge goes to the PS3. The textures and framerate are comparable, but the PS3 has far less pop-in. The 360 has richer colors, but the PS3 has better anti-aliasing making it look a little cleaner. Because GTA IV can preload onto the PS3 hard drive, the in-game loads are faster. Don't worry Xbox owners, the load times are rarely more than 30 seconds and don't occur very often. The slight visual edge goes to PS3, but the 360 is no slouch. Either version will do you proud.

I was considering just adding something about it in the Reception section but I didn't bother because a) I didn't want to be accused of fanboyism and b) an xbox fanboy would have just reverted it anyway! I'd like to gauge some opinion? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably should be included in some way as it is normal to discuss differences between versions. As the differences seem to be only very minor then it should be written in a way that reflects that, and not spend too much time on the subject. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's balanced it should be OK, something along the lines of... In it's review IGN said that they thought the PlayStation 3 version looked slightly better than the Xbox 360 version which had "richer colours" but the PlayStation's Anti-aliasing made the graphics look "cleaner". - X201 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although, I have been playing the PS3 version today (it was shipped to me very early), and I didn't think there was any antialiasing. It looked very jagged to me on my 720p screen. -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We're going to beat you not only with sticks, but with bats. Metal bats.Wikipedia ain't no forum, fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 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)

NO POINT for Sound Track page yet

Nothing on that page is sited so it mine as well not be listed yet Butters0422 (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's a lot of info you need to remove then. Emil Kastberg (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

also, the soundtrack section of the main page states that blink 182 is a key band in the game, which is not true, since they are not included....making stuff up anyone?....user:nakamine, 4:07am eastern standard time 5-01-08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamine (talk • contribs) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception issues

There's no empire or playstation world reviews cited. anyway, the empire review was taken down from the site, so it definitely shouldn't be up there. 76.232.62.205 (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've commented it our so that it can be easily put back when the review re-appears when the review embargo is lifted tonight. - X201 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotaku review

Kotaku just released their review for the game if anyone wants to post that. http://kotaku.com/384421/grand-theft-auto-iv-review-life-liberty-city-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness They are also releasing a 'comparison review' momentarily. -Del Deadeyes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.181.84 (talk)

The Game has now been released

The Game has now been released. Since the article has been locked please may an admin remove the tag banner on the front of the article. Ganstagingerns8061791 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Legally, it hasn't been released anywhere around the world yet. It's semi-protected to deter drive-by vandalism, so the official release of the game doesn't necessarily mean that the article will be unprotected. /Carson 21:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the OP was referring to the {{future game}} banner. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The game has indeed now been released in several locations (Australia and New Zealand are some examples) ShadowFusion (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences from previous Grand Theft Auto games

I wondering whether this particular section should be split to add more information to the game?.--SkyWalker (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. But it needs planning. We should discuss what subcategories to rewrite the list in. Emil Kastberg (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on a draft of that which I've now performed. I converted the list to "prose" and merged the Differences with the Gameplay section. The subsections, I made were Vehicles, Combat, Communication, Police. Each section still needs an overview of the topic and some copyediting. I think a Missions section (like GTA III's article) describing the game's mission structure and a Environment (or some other name) section which talks about the other activities to do in the city (like the comedy clubs etc.) would be good. - kollision (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The section looks much better now, good work. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea good work. I heard they are mini games that is included in GTA 4 such has darts and other stuff. That should be added to. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto multiplayer

Contrary to the article, GTA 4 is not the first GTA game on a console to feature online multiplayer. The GTA games on the PSP featured online multiplayer. The PC version also had unofficial multiplayer. 80.194.73.200 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the PSP or PC are classified as a console. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.244.1 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a HOME console, but could be worth a mention as a portable console nontheless? 80.194.73.200 (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No because the multiplayer on the psp games were ad-hoc only, not online.--151.199.196.179 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. Wondered why I could never get it working.. 80.194.73.200 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

GTA 1, London and 2 had multiplayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.199.45 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not online multiplayer, and certainly not for the console versions considering, you know, they were Playstation games. As far as the PC ports go (and as I recall), they used an IPX protocol which is network-based, not over the internet itself. 67.142.130.13 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IPX is what I would consider "online", particularly given that I've played GTA2 multiplayer with several of my non-local friends before. It's not supported by a server management service, of course, but the ability to play with a remote user over the internet counts as online to me.

If the article stated that it was the first GTA game to include a multiplayer gaming service, I'd be kosher cookin'. --Jtgibson (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Missed the remark "on a console", however. "On a console" is correct -- there were no official multiplayer-enabled console GTAs.) --Jtgibson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

hey guys. GTA and GTA 2 both had multiplayer (although it wasn't as fancy as it is now days.) don't forget, this game originated on the PC before the console, so when talking about GTA firsts, I think it's important to include PC version and give credit to rockstar for their earlier innovations with multiplayer appropriately —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.41 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Perhaps a reference to this article could be added. [5] 80.194.73.200 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 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. Cavenba^{me 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. Cavenba^{me 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. Cavenba^{me 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 Hayes^talk 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.

[6]

--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)

theft and bittorrent leak?

Is the theft by ups employees and leak to bittorrent notable enough to be included in the article? I know the harry potter article has information regarding its leak, not sure what the standard is regarding leaks of material before its release date is. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be, heres a link to the news story, plus a bunch of videos are now on Youtube. http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23608698-5014117,00.html --TGothier (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a discussion above about the pirated versions. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

um....

could i put the fox news scores?? for the game??Al1012 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was skeptical that Fox News actually reviewed games, but I Googled it anyway. I was shocked to see that not only does Fox News review games, but it gave this game a near perfect score. However, seeing as The New York Times' score isn't included in the list of scores, I don't see how Fox News' score should be. MemeGeneScene (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ok well i just saw it and was thinking about it thats all thx.Al1012 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is mention of the New York Times opinion of the game. Kurushi (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

anything foxnews does should not be included with anything involving free minds....obviously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamine (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 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. [7] 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: [8] —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)

Removals by Y2kcrazyjoker4

I've re-added the information removed by Y2kcrazyjoker4 in these two edits[9] [10]. I didn't really see those edits as an improvment. Citing Justin Calvert saying the game is "compelling" and "undoubtedly the best Grand Theft Auto yet" doesn't really tell readers WHY that is. I cited Calvert for criticisms of the game because the Reception section is completely favorable. Surely someone somewhere has said something negative about the game? It's also common to list aggregate scores before individual reviews. I think the analyst predictions can be trimmed after actual sales information comes in, but you removed the citation pointing to the $550 million prediction. Explain what you want trimmed and we can work on a compromise. --Pixelface (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of complaints it has been noted that there are a few glitches, lags or some other kind of "hitch". Stabby Joe (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Which version? Or both? I've seen a video of the 360 version having some clipping issues, but not a decent reference for it. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

what do u mean by "the 360 version having some clipping issues" Al1012 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Clipping is when only things that are directly visible are rendered on screen. So things like buildings and trees aren't rendered if they're behind you. This is basically done to save CPU power. I've seen some videos where people have been driving along and a tree suddenly appears as it hasn't been rendered as soon as it was in the field of view. As with Neil, I haven't seen any sources talking about this yet. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ok Al1012 (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It won't be hard to find complaints actually, no matter how minor. IGN did as a way of conveying that the 10/10 isn't perfect perfect. Plus theres OXM that gave it a 9.5... so mention that 0.5 complaint. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

GTA IV Budget and Staff

If the information is public there should be mention of the budget and the staff required to produce this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.38.43 (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I second this, any information on the money spent to produce the game should be included in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidweiner23 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"According to Janco Partners analyst Mike Hickey, who likes to suck dick" probably should not be included in this article. I doubt this guy's sexual activites are pertinent information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.122.61 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

lololol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.241.97.133 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil guys. It is unknown how much it went to make GTA 4. According to this source GTA 4 production budget is more than $100m. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Niko's Nationality

Bellic is a Croatian

Hi, as I can see there was some arguing about Niko's nationality. I first he was Russian but then I found that on many places it is said that he is a Serbian.

Here are some links to be added by someone that can edit. Please add them so there is less confusion. Thanks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356918/

In this site it is said <Niko Bellic, a merchant mariner and Serbian vet of the Bosnian civil war, arrives in Liberty City aboard a freighter ship.>

http://kotaku.com/384421/grand-theft-auto-iv-review-life-liberty-city-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness

<In it, damaged goods Serbian war vet Niko Bellic ventures to Liberty City in search of closure, all the while coming to terms with the harsh realities of The American Dream.>

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology/gamezone/2008/04/29/grand-theft-auto-iv-89520-20399274/

<This time around you take the role of former soldier Niko Bellic, a Serbian immigrant who is lured into Liberty City's underworld by his shady cousin Roman, falsely promising wealth and women.>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/29/grandtheftauto?gusrc=rss&feed=technology

<Lead character Niko Bellic is a Serbian national with a violent military past who arrives in Liberty City via a rusted container ship.>

And many more but I don't think it needs more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.142.34 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's never said in the game where he is from and the only thing you pretty much got is him speaking in serbo-croatian and making references to Yugoslavia and the Adriatic coast, you cant just assume he is Serbian. In my opinion to avoid conflict, you should use "The former Yugoslavia" wich is the only real option. All we know for sure is that he is a war veteran from the former Yugoslavia, ALL other statements are pure speculations.--Nirvana77 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It says in the game he's Serbian. Neıl ☎ 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.photorola.net/uploads/2cf46a73a6.jpg Mstank (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that in the game it states that Nikko's nationality is Serbian. However an error on RockStar's part is that Bellic is a Croatian family name (last name). Majority of people with a bosnian, croatian, serbian backround can confirm this. --Mr Shizzle (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. You can only repeat what has been stated in a reliable source, and there appear to be a preponderance of sources that refer to him as Serbian. End of story. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL WUT? Why did we get rid of GTA'S impact on the United States economy?

I read earlier that GTA 4 would generate a certain % of the US economy today...Yet somebody got rid of it, probably some foreigner or somebody. Anywawy it should stay in, I'm sorry but it's not like it's baised that it'll generate a certain % of our economy, it's all true and fair. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so ignoring problems are how editors handle stuff these days huh? Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I too think this should be included, I think it is useful information as of now The Snuffster (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

indeed, this should be included...(nakamine) 4:18, 1 May 2008 (EST)

Sales

I think this quote should be rewritten as it appears to be a miscalculation of two bits of information from the reference given. "Various analysts predicted that Grand Theft Auto IV would sell 4 to 9.5 million units its first week, generating sales of $400 to $550 million." Firstly, 4 million - 9.5 million is quite a broad estimate for an analyst to be making and secondly, even if that was the estimate the amount of money would look more like '$400 to $800 million' Do you see what I'm saying? I had a brief read through the source but I haven't got time to rewrite a paragraph about it at the moment. Kurushi (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That sentence says various analysts, plural. One analyst has predicted 4 million in the first week[11] (Pachter), another has predicted 9.5 million and $466 million (Hickey). Take Two estimated pre-order demand at 6 million or $400 million. One analyst predicted $550 million (Wilson). Wilson predicted sales in April alone (that's two days, April 29 and April 30) would be 4.5 million and didn't give a first week unit prediction. --Pixelface (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME MENTION OF SHORTAGES AND INFLATED PRICING AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. THE GAME IS UNAVAILABLE TO RETAILERS (I AM A RETAILER OF VIDEOGAMES MYSELF), PRICES ARE £60+ FOR A STANDARD EDITION ON EBAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.74.24 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Still no resolve to the above concerns. There should be a reference to the severe inability to get hold of GTAIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.251.188 (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How Many were sold the first day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.91.221 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it is more than one analyst being referred to but the sentence is misleading and basically incorrect:
"Grand Theft Auto IV would sell 4 to 9.5 million units its first week, generating sales of $400 to $550 million."
The reason it is misleading is that you read that and you think '4 to 9.5 million will generate $400 to $550 million' This is wrong because the $400 million is in reference to 6 Million units being pre-orderd not a predicted 4 million copies being sold. Check the source and see for yourself, it doesn't say anywhere that 4 million units will produce $400 million.Kurushi (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are different predictions. The unit predictions in that sentence don't correspond exactly to the gross predictions. You seem to think that 4 million units means $400 million, but no, look at the source. You seem to think that 9.5 million units means $550 million, but no, look at the source. Would putting them in different sentences clarify it for you? --Pixelface (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've split it into two sentences. Is that better? --Pixelface (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact it was the opposite, I knew that 4 million units didn't mean $400 million as I explained this in my second post. I also knew that 9.5 million units didn't mean $550 million. It's not that I 'seemed to think' this, the sentence was worded to say that 4 million units did mean $400 million, and that is why I posted in the first place to make sure that was corrected. My concern was that the wording of that sentence meant that people reading this article would be mislead because of the way it was phrased:'x' generating 'y' ('generating' being the key word because 'x' did not generate 'y'). The re-wording you have done however, makes it read a lot better, thank you. It should prevent confusion. Kurushi (talk) 10:55, 1 May 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))

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)

Yugoslavia

Under "Synopsis" and then under "Plot", make sure that Yugoslavia is formatted like this: [[Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], because I'm pretty sure it's that Yugoslavia that's being referred to. 67.41.160.234 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviews table

Ok, this table is getting way to big, I mean no featured article has one that size and FA is what we're driving at. We need to remove a large chunk of it. Stabby Joe (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is just let it get bigger, there are still some important reviews to come, and wait until the fuss has died down on the article, give it a month or more, then we can edit the whole and discuss which reviews are important and need to stay, and which reviews don't add anything to the article. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If something is having a negative impact on an article, or is breaking guidelines, we can't just "wait a month" to fix it, we need to fix it NOW. JayKeaton (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's too big. As of now I see 20 entries and 2 aggregate sites. The {{VG Reviews}} template has 42 default entries. I've never really understood how cutting content makes an article more featurable. Which publications do you think should be removed? Personally I couldn't find a citation for EGM (or perhaps it's the same as 1UP). --Pixelface (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 1UP's review scores are generally whatever the first score from the EGM review was.--Gorillazfan249 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking to trim the list, then it is important to keep a worldwide view on things. Rather than having just 10 reviews from American publications, try to get reviews from publications all over the world, like Australia, Europe, Asia as well as America. JayKeaton (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically the table needs the usual internet suspects (GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy), Mags (Official Xbox and PS, keep UK given being the first) and some other non US sources (Eurogamer for example). The thing is we can mention what many of reviews said, but that doesn't mean they all have to be in the table. Just look at pretty much most of the GA and FA articles. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are 61 articles about a man being stabbed, we're going to add this in.

Pick one of the many articles that talk about 'the stabbing incident'

- http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&ncl=1154871672

This news article says that the stabbing had absolutely nothing to do with the release of GTA 4

- http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2215574/grand-theft-auto-stabbing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.255.41 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, news of this nature is given disproportionate attention in order to damage the image of a product or company. There is no mention in the Ikea article of the riot that happened at the opening of one of its UK branches nor is there mention of the shooting at Glastonbury Festival in that respective article (these are just two examples). Even if the incident was relevant to the game it would be inappropriate to include it in this article because it is not about the game . Kurushi (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I really question it's relevance, it's, without meaning to sound callous, a case of wrong place, wrong time. The guy could have been queing at an ATM machine or in a grocers shop or whatever and it wouldn't have got a fraction of the attention. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The stabbing is being disputed in this report

The storm over a stabbing outside a Croydon games store that was selling Grand Theft Auto may turn out to be a media panic.

Early reports suggested a 23-year-old man was stabbed by a hooded man waiting with 100 others in line outside Gamestation store in Croydon, which began selling the new grand Theft Auto game at midnight.

But it has since emerged that the stabbing did not take place outside the store and had nothing to do with the people queuing for the popular game.

"The victim had categorically not pre-ordered the game and GameStation is confident that he was not a GameStation customer; neither was he a part of the queue outside the Croydon store, a source told the Games Radar blog.

The source also said that the stabbing did not occur outside the store, but a quarter of a mile away outside East Croydon station.

Police have described the attacker as a light skinned black man aged about 21, 6ft 5ins tall, of medium build wearing a light grey hooded top.

The victim is recovering in hospital.

Strongsauce (talk) 00:31, 1 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[12] "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 [13] - 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 Nelson^Holla! 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 Nelson^Holla! 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[14][15]. And I see two articles on BBC News[16][17] And we might even cite Iain Thomson who said the stabbing was disputed.[18] --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

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[19][20], The Daily Telegraph[21], and San Jose Mercury News[22] have written about it? I think violence surrounding the game's launch is related to the game's launch. The PS3 article says[23] "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)

NIKOS 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"). 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)

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)

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)

Censorship:

Australia and New Zealand recieved edited versions of Grand Theft Auto 4.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/04/rockstar_speaks_on_australia_gta_iv_edits_r18_classification.html

should be added

It is already been added in heading "Edited version for Australia and New Zealand".--SkyWalker (talk) 03:25, 1 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)

Trailer Music

Does info about the background music in the GTA trailers belong in this article? Initial Trailer - "Pruit Igoe" by Philip Glass from the sound track Koyaanisqatsi Second Trailer - "Arm In Arm (Shy Child Remix)" by The Boggs

Nope, all the music being played in the trailers has been id'd and placed in the marketing article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.214.253 (talk) 18:46, 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 [24].--SkyWalker (talk) 04:30, 2 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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? [25] --Jedravent (talk) 12:52, 3 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)

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)

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)

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 [26]. Ingolfson (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)