Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 2

Archived Page

I've archived the page as it was getting long and the discussions going on were getting hostile and not productive to the article. --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yay! --70.128.115.70 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied a few unanswered comments from that archive page back to here, as they might still be relevant for discussion. --70.128.115.70 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those! --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DATE

Someone has edited the date, taking the European and American release dates as being the same when they're NOT. I'm reverting it back. --Jiei 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you add a source for that? The official site only mentions the 16th. Rafert 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Take 2 sues Jack Thompson

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/13027/Take-Two-Strikes-Back-Sues-Jack-Thompson/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.92.202 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Vaz9jW054

thnis might get him off R* lol--Butterrum 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

PS3 with episode??

R* did not conform this it was a source that conformed this but not R* or R* North so its not a fact also R* and Peter Moore both stated that it was EXCLUSIVE for the XBOX 360 and is avalible after a month on Xbox Live market so the info about the PS3 is false untill R* SAYS SO not some magizine--Butterrum 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Innit though. 212.219.57.126 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

GTA 4 Fansites?

There is no section for fansites. There are a lot of them out there but here are some that i know about

www.gta4.net www.gta4.tv www.gta-ireland.com www.gtagaming.com

ect

I would also like to say that the above poster doesn't know what he is talking about. The Source that the magazine cited was from someone within Rockstar North... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.158.249 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

According to the Wikipedia guideline on links (WP:NOT#LINK), articles really should just limit the links to fansites to the most important/notable one(s). Also as the game isn't out yet all the fansites will be adding to the article is the same information there is here and some un-sourced speculation. I think we can wait until the game is out for when fansites provide information and the higher level of detail that's not put in Wikipedia before adding one. That's my opinion on the section. --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What he saidYeanold Viskersenn 17:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ok this is not pokemon hes right those are links to real deals from R* north yeah R* north is in Ireland for all i know GTA IV chould be Scottish *gasp* lol well i dont know that for shure lol but i was thinking sceance Manhunt was a ticket to what stuff was gonna be in GTASA is Manhunt 2 gonna be a ticket i hope so Manhunts a good way to know whats up--Butterrum 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read a dictionary definition of what "ditto" means before you try to throw an insult. Moving on, like Bill said, only very notable fansites of extreme merit will be added, if any exist, not just some plain fansites that, by the way, are not from Rockstar. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i know what it means im not listening to you ok for all i mknow Bill chould be your puppet--Butterrum 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not accusing me of being a sockpuppet because that's pretty insulting. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a long while now, I've started a wikiproject, received a barnstar award and added some high resolution free images. If you are suggesting I'm just a sockpuppet despite my contributions then you really need to read up on these policies WP:DICK, WP:NPA, WP:AGF. I'm pleased with what I've contributed to Wikipedia and implying that I'm a puppet is to imply that I'm not the person who made these contributions. Please think before you make a comment like that, because even saying I could be a sockpuppet is insulting to me. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to return to the subject, I still second the vote to only add notable fan sites, if any appear; all "run of the mill" sites will be removed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

whbat are you talking about i get insulted all the time and i dont care how many awards you won you chould be him --Butterrum 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection

The page is semi-protected. --70.142.47.196 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking why. There is no mention of it. :) --70.142.47.196 02:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, ok. Well, you didn't use a question mark so I was confused. I guess IP vandalism got out of hand. I haven't been paying close enough attention lately. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --64.149.37.117 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

• I know this has gone through all the correct procedures and deleted, and this isn't the right place to discuss it - but it seems so, so petty. There is no free alternative to the image, it accurately depicted the subject in question (the announcement of GTA IV episodic content on the 360) and was correctly sourced. I can't believe, in any scope of my wildest imagination that either Microsoft OR Rockstar would have ANY problem with such a blatant publicity-oriented photograph being placed in such a high profile position on the net. Would they really cause a pointless PR disaster for themselves by suing a famous non-profit organisation in order to REDUCE their own publicity? It's absolute nonsense - but them's the rules, even though the rules are, for want of a better word, silly. I find that pedantic destructive editing like this, targetting blatantly good faith edits and removing countless hours of honest work for the sake of red tape is extremely offputting for me as an editor and I'm sure it has been the cause of the loss of a good few editors in the past. But them's the rules... Yeanold Viskersenn 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would have chosen to keep the image. I also believe that it wouldn't be breaking the Wikipedia fair use policies by keeping it too. I didnt see the fair use rantionale on the actual image, but here's what I would have used:

The only other concern to me would be whether or not the image (and the event it describes) is notable enough to include in the article. I believe it is as it's a unique announcement of the first next-gen GTA game. But like you said, it's all happened now and there's not much that can be done. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, the fact that the site specifically says no other use is kind of off putting though. I don't know where fair use comes into that kind of situation. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowlegde of the processes of uploading images and whatnot, but I also feel that would, and probably should, have been more successful in asserting the necessity of using the image for the article since, apparently, the rationale that was used didn't suffice. But that's just my 2 cents. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted by consensus and YES it's unfree out of context and blantant publicity. if youre a Microsoft Fanboy and loves Peter Moore arms, Wikipedia isn't the right place to show your proudness. --Ciao 90 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That last sentence was unnecessary and inflammatory. Nobody here said anything that seemed to qualify them as a "fanboy". We were just discussing the fair use rationale. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that Bill's rationale suggestion would have possibly asserted the image's existence; to tell you the truth, I'm pretty impartial to whether it stayed or not, but it wasn't hurting anything, was it? And, if you're just a blatant dick, then Wikipedia isn't the place to be unnecessarily mean, if it's not too bold to say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be closed; I have a bad feeling more people are going to come and spark unnecessary conflict. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and even though not much can be done at this point, at least 3 editors have gone on record to just say how they disagree with the decision. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A question for those ignorant a**holes who edit this.

a have a few issues about the correctness of this article and I would like to discuss them...

first: how do you know that THE "IV" logo is "Official" ? from where do you know that? few weeks ago everybody thougt that the old "Grand Theft Auto" logo was "Official". so how do you know that? the fact that its posted on some count down site does not mean sh*t.

second: the flag notifications are not tolerant against Canada because USA is not the only country in north america and since there is no united north american flag there should not be any flags.

third: the "Media" should be "unknown" because for PS3 the media will be only the blu-ray and DVD will not be equal thats why the logic conclusion is that HD-DVD will be the media for the xbox 360 release

so if you are from R* and know these facts please write everthing properly and if you dont know DONT EDIT THIS ARTICLE I know that people will delete this what i just wrote but still... think-it-through OK? ---Chegis 20:34 march 23, 2007 (UTC)

I recently reverted back to the 4 Logo so I'll answer about that. It's official because it's taken from the official rockstar website. That doesn't mean it will definitely be used on the game cover, it just means that it's not unofficial, it was made/commissioned by the owners of GTA4. Also, try not to call other editors ignorant assholes, assume good faith that editors are only trying to make the article better. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an editor too and by posting this i have made myself a asshole wich i am. but you are not better than i am. ok that answered my question about the logo. but how about the media and thoes flags? ---Chegis 20:55 march 23, 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments:

• The "IV" logo has been up for a while, and its the logo on the official site, so it can be considered official until something new comes along (like from the trailer next Thursday)
• Put a canada flag along with the US flag if you want
• All PS3 games are on Blu-Ray, all Xbox 360 games are on DVD. Xbox 360 does not support HD-DVD games

Also take a look at WP:NPA and WP:AGF —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

actualy it does/could support HD-DVD games. [[1]] ---Chegis 21:09, march 23 2007 (UTC)

It could possibly, but from your link: The drive is able to play HD DVD movies, but all Xbox 360 games will continue to use DVD-9 media. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FX

Anyone else seen the ad on FX. It shows the countdown, and it's actually counting down. Perhaps, someone could find more info about it and put it on the page? 71.75.161.147 06:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes i saw that, amd when i wnet to sleep i left it on that channel, but when i woke up at Seven it had been replaced with an infomercial --User:Atomic Religione]

PC Version?

Does anyone want to put a note on the main article regarding a PC version? Given past history of the franchise, it's likely that sometime in 2008 they'll port it to PC. May be worth mentioning.

If you don't have any proof of Rockstar making a port, it shouldn't be added until said proof shows up. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

there will a pc version, even if it hasnt been confirmed yet. and you can bet that it will include all the xbox and ps3 episodes and new content, and it will have better graphics compared to the console versions, but alas we pc gamers have to wait an extra 6 months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

PS2 Version

How about a PS2 version? GTA San Andreas was the bestselling game in the PS2 console. Surely, Rock Star doesn't want to just throw away the profits by releasing this exclusively on the PS3 and Xbox 360? Moonwalkerwiz 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS2 is for poor people i have an xbox 360 and i will enjoy better graphics nad textures. its just ignorant to think that a new game will come out on a old console. --- Chegis 17:25, march 28 2007 (UTC)

I love how a 15 year old from Latvia posts that ps2 is for poor people. XBox360 costs more than 90% of your countryman make in a month kiddie, don't be so offensive.

You hate poor people? And why are you so obsessed with "nad textures"? :P ---70.128.115.49 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar is not likely to release this on the PS2, or the original Xbox. That's just how the industry works. Would you expect GTA III to come out on PSone also? —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just asking why he hates poor people. Of course it's dumb to think GTAIV will come out on PS2. BTW the trailer will be released in just over 3 hours. :) --70.128.115.49 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We have like 15 hours till the trailer comes out, i will get PS3 sometimes in 2008 :) User:rickenmetal 12:49. 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep idle banter to a minimum. There was already a large amount to begin with and we don't need more. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" section should be renamed

I think calling it "Controversy" overplays it- this section should just be retitled "Jack Thompson" or some such to indicate that it's just him who is making any noise about GTA IV at this moment. If some other prominent organization or politician jumps on the GTA IV-bashing bandwagon, then it can be more renamed and more accurately called a "controversy". -albrozdude 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; "Jack Thompson controversy" or something to that effect will suffice more, as of right now at least. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

All the previous GTAs (III and Vice City) contain a "Controversy" heading. Although Jack Thompson is the only one involved in the current discussion regarding this installment, it is unlikely that no other individuals or organizations will voice their opinion regarding either the content or distribution. IdoAlphaOmega 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Website crashed

I think it should maybe be added to the trailer section that at 22:00 UTC the trailer was not shown as the website crashed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.109.124.29 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

It's really set in Liberty City as the article now claims? EntityHavoc 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, seeing as no one managed to see the trailer before it crashed.--86.151.137.245 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The trailer doesn't exist. Rockstars pulled an april fools on you all. I saw the countdown reach 0.--Luigifan13 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to get to the page asking me for my age, and some of my friends apparently have an outline of a video player but the video won't load. EntityHavoc 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw it hit 0 too, and got to an age confirmation page. When I put that in the player came up, but nothing was loading. It also had an option to download the trailer in multiple formats, including HD WMV. --ParalysedBeaver 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've got to the video page now. Hopefully it will work soon, it seems to be getting better over time. EntityHavoc 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

the countdown was set to read your system clock, i set my clock forward and got redirected, slowiy i was seing 404 errors replaed with content pages, my assumption is too many people are waiting for this and constantly hitting f5 and the server cant cope. 84.65.106.116 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw the trailer right after the GTAIV site hit 00 00 00, that crashed but Gametrailers.com showed the trailer for a few seconds before their site got F*d. it basically shows a guy who has some sort of russian accent talking about how he has killed,smuggled people and how hopefully it will be better in this new city. there is a ship that says "liberty city' on it, thats shows while the dialogue is refering to smuggling so who knows where its set, if the ship if from LC or if its just pulled in from LC The Ravager 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this link, its the trailer from an xbox site. http://movies.teamxbox.com/xbox360/gta4/gta4_3291hd.wmv

New York City? No.

A few things in the trailer show the words "Liberty City". For instance, the ship at the shipping yard says "PLATYPUS// LIBERTY CITY". (Nbmatt 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

It's obviously a parody of New York though. EntityHavoc 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Platypus - they just signifies the ship is from LC, not that it's in LC. There is nothing there to say it is LC, or 'obviously a parody' of NY. I would argue it is in fact a facsimile of New York. Dan Kerins 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On one of the signs during the "Times Square" scene it says "Welcome to Liberty City" ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the recent trailer it is obvious that the game will be taking place in a city modeled almost identically to modern New York City. For this reason I think it is safe to compare the game's version of New York City (Liberty City) to the real thing. DigitalisAkujin 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is most definitely Liberty City. I don't know the specific street or street name, but in one of the opening sequences to the trailer, you can clearly see a near exact replica of the street leading up to Marco's Bistro in the original Liberty City from Grand Theft Auto III. At least, I believe it is -- it certainly tipped me off to assume it was Liberty City the first time I watched the trailer. ~~

Nothing about the trailer suggests that this takes place in Liberty City. Liberty City as depicted in the GTA III series has none of the landmarks featured. The Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, the Flatiron Building, the Empire State Building - that's NYC, my friends. Liberty City was entirely different physically and geographically and borrowed only from New York in style and influence. The city depicted here is a relatively accurate re-creation of New York, and none of the landmarks or street scenes shown appear in the GTA universe's Liberty City. The only possibility that this is Liberty City is that the Rockstar people are starting the IV series off from scratch and completely scrapping the universe of the III series, favoring more real-to-life representations of actual cities than merely stylized ones. But there's not nearly enough information in the trailer to definitively say that. Until more info comes out, the game's setting should be identified as New York or an unnamed city that bears a striking resemblance to New York.

- I think its quite obvious that they've gone for a more realistic representation of NY this time, but are still calling it Liberty City. Everything points to it being NY, but everything points to it being Liberty City, and knowing GTA, it just simply makes more sense that they would call it Liberty City. My first argument would be the GetaLife building, by the time you've filled a city with fake names like that, you may as well have renamed the city and called it your own. BTW, did anyone notice if the WTC was gone? Like is this set post-9/11? Vality 11:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the trailer you can clearly see signs that say "Welcome to Liberty City" and "I *heart* Liberty City". It's in a New York style because since day one Liberty City has been based on NYC. Look at the map for Liberty City in GTA and an aerial photo of NYC, it's the same shape. There's more in the trailer to indicate that it's not NYC and is infact Liberty City, the landmarks don't count because there was landmarks in SA (Transamerica building, Hoover dam etc.). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Size of Map

In the last shot showing what appears to be the Brooklyn Bridge, what looks like the Empire State Building looks lie it is only a few blocks away. In real life, the bridge is almost at the south end of the island, and the building is at 35th, which would mean that if Liberty City were an approximate scale map of NYC, 40 odd blocks would be compressed into 2 or 3, which would make the entire island not very big. Thoughts? (maybe they havent let on to the fact that you can play the entire country...) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.123.231.53 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Liberty City is not an approximate scale map of NYC (whatever that means), just like Vice City and Los Santos they are just imaginative representations of RL cities. Los Santos includes well-known buildings from other cities besides Los Angeles. But yeah, I'm doubting that after San Andreas the next big GTA is going to now limit you to just one city. I expect the next trailers to show other areas. --64.149.33.224 02:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

YouTube link

You can freely add my video upload, I think I was the first one to upload it on YouTube, or at least the one that people have started linking to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlF6fbIFiCM Also, don't forget that there's gametrailers.com etc.. so, please, give some links to the readers. --88.193.241.224 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

LA Noire

LA Noire is a completely different game set in the 40's in LA, whoever put that it's GTA IV obviously hasnt seen the real trailer which is set in New York —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KAZAAM (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC). --Kazaam 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Animals

Is it worth mentioning that seagulls are visible several times throughout the trailer? Granted there were birds in San Andreas ( buzzards in the Bone County area ), but these appear to be far different. No interaction is shown, but they do make noise, and seem to have more complicated flight-patterns and such, not to mention actual animation, whereas I don't believe any animation was given to any animals in GTA before this.

Not really, that's verging on original research. If information comes about that there's a significant difference with the animals then whatever sourced information available should go in, but at the moment it's just speculation n I think it doesn't belong. In my opinion this is just an advance of the technology making the game seem more realistic rather than anything notable. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. But still, even this level of realism when it came to wild-life was never present in previous Grand Theft Auto titles, and it seems kind of note-worthy that they beefed up the entire system overall to include animals. Though I'm guessing we can rule out deer, bears, and so on, due to the locale in which the game is going to take place. 12.107.247.112 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time animals to that detail have been put in the GTA series, we can expect dogs and cats I would think. And rats. That is original speculation, but in a description of the trailer, mentioning birds seems fair enough JayKeaton 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"IV" Logo

Alright, there's already some discussion on this. But is there some specific reason why the "IV" Logo was deleted/is unavailable? It was on the countdown website, it was on Rockstar's television advertisements, it was in the trailer. All signs point to it being the game's official logo at the moment. The article infobox is begging for an image and I can't think of a better graphic than the game's logo. Pele Merengue 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oot, there it is. Nevermind then. Pele Merengue 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Eastern European, or Turkic?

The presumable main character is indeed an immigrant from a Slavic or Middle Eastern country, but given his facial features isn't there a possibility that he's not Eastern European? Just wondering. 70.43.138.74 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He definitely appears Eastern European to me overall, although I agree his facial appearance is slightly ambigious. However "an immigrant with a heavy Russian accent" is original research and needs to be cited or removed. - 85.210.11.39 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He looks and sounds like a true-born Russian, to me, though that is only a guess at this point. But even when the game comes out, how much more will we be able to say? The only reason we said Carl was black was because -- well, his skin was black. I doubt R* thinks anyone cares enough to mention his specific European descent in the game other than in passing ( say he used the word "motherland" in the context of referring to his old home ). But yeah, it shouldn't say he's Russian until we have a source for that. 12.107.247.112 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait for a source; all this speculation could create warring. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He sounds Turkish/Iranian to me. --Looskuh 10:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he's a Gipsy --- Chegis 12:03, 30 march 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this conversation is irrelevant unless you all have sources. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we please remove the Jack Thompson section?

I hate it, it has nothing to do with GTA IV and why is there a whole section in this article? Please, someone take it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caffolote (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Why does it bother you so much? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a noteworthy controversy. I imagine it could be better-sourced, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)r

Spelling error

"similar cinematic sytle to Godfrey Reggio's" sytle should be style —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.160.65.14 (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Original research

While I agree that some of the things edited into the article since the trailer's debut were somewhat speculative and original, I honestly don't see the harm in mentioning cold hard factual things seen in the trailer in a kind of trivia section, such as the Liberty City welcome sign and boat insignia. Pointing out things that are obvious in the trailer and having no speculation about them should be perfectly legal. If this violates some kind of rule, that rule is stupid beyond belief. I can see how a claim like "most of the gameplay will occur around NY's "Brighton Beach" as lots of Russians reside there" should be removed, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with simply stating that the voice-over has some kind of Eastern European/Turkic accent. I mean, come on. -- Torvik 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are trivial things you noticed while watching the trailer. Saying "This is important enough to mention" is itself an original conclusion. If a fact is truly important, be patient; it will shortly be mentioned in a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what website would you consider to be a reliable source?Neshcom 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A publication with an editorial process. Not someone's blog or fansite or personal site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

How is claiming that his accent is this or that based on the sound trivial? It sounds like whatever kind of accent, it can be compared to someone in real life with that accent I would imagine rather easily, so what's the problem? -- Torvik 04:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what's there now is appropriate. I thought you were talking about the big bulleted list of things some fansite noticed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, I kinda was. I don't remember any specifics (I could look in the history I guess, but O the laziness) however I thought I saw at least a few points in there that weren't speculative at all, just something pointed out in the trailer that you might not have otherwise noticed. Torvik 04:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fansite material. Things you noticed while watching a trailer is original research, albeit inane original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right, man. Torvik 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The news ticker in trailer

As well as mentioning the cheese crisis and the african markets being down on the wall street news ticker in the trailer, it also on the two lines on the top ticker "..says TAKE2+69% PAS – 2% DEV + 2% SOME SHARES HA.." "..HAVE GONE DOWN.." Rockstar knew people would read this ticker, so what are they trying to say? JayKeaton 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To further that I have gleamed as much original research as I could from the video, here are my findings. Some of it is note worthy for the page, most of it is not. Seeing as people come to this page for information about this game, when there is hardly any information out yet on it, I think this list is justifiable on the talk page for now -

The Bank of Liberty is on the corner of Columbus Av and Calcium St -

The city newspaper is the “Liberty Tree” with the slogan “Yesterdays News Today -

Bean Machine is a coffee shop/chain of coffee shops in LC -

Ticker for the Liberty Tree says “OUR NEW SUV CONSUMES MORE PETROL THAN ANY OF OUR COMPETITORS” “FLASH SOAP MAKES YOU FEEL YOUNGER” “MORE MONEY MAKES YOU HAPPY” “11:34 TIME FOR A BROWN RING BAGEL” (then seconds after it says 11:52 then 12:01), “BUY MORE STUFF AS YOU CAN NEVER HAE ENOUGH” -

The trailer reveals a return of Burger Shot and Cluckin’ Bell. A woman is holding a bag from “SHODI” stores. A girl pedestrian is seen smoking a cigarette. -

The “ME TV THEATRE” is advertising a show called “All about me” -

Ads for the movie “I Slept With My Mom” -

A man is seen walking while reading a book then he drops the book and walks off. Another man is reading a paper as he walks. -

A cable car runs parallel to the suspension bridge. A pedestrian walkway and viewing platform is seen suspended directly under the bridge. -

The roads contain potholes and sheets of metal, meaning more detail even on the roads compared to just generic textures. Very high detail can be noted on the park chairs/benches”. Graphical errors in distant objects overlapping with close ones can be seen when the Russian walks across the bridge. The Statue of Liberty can clearly be seen in this video. JayKeaton 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JayKeaton (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

And finally, GTA 4 heralds the return of the realistic painted NYPD police car. The original game had the realistic blue painted car originally but was changed to the black and white cruisers a few weeks before it's release. Now, though, the Liberty City PD cars more accurately than ever resemble the real life NYPD police cars (you can clearly see this right at the end of the 30th second of the trailer). This point was worth making in the "Cuts, changes, and the 9/11 effect" section of the GTA3 page, so it is certainly worth mentioning here JayKeaton 07:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC) A comparison of the GTAIV police cars and the real life NYPD cars can be seen at Image:LCPDcomparison.jpg JayKeaton 07:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't have removed the gameplay elements..

GTAIV staff vs. Vice City staff

So there's 150 developers working on GTAIV compared with 130 "non-voice actors and non-motion capture actors" on Vice City? What kind of actors were they then? It's pretty unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.147.164.72 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

It means that there were 150 artists, programmers writters and such working on it, not including voice actors and motion capture actors. It is trying to say that a lot of people actually worked ON the game, but it doesn't include the voice actors because the voice actors numbers don't "really" count towards the production of the game JayKeaton 07:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

should it be mentiond?

should it be noted that the game seems to be set in liberty, yet the city is clearly portrayed in a far diffrent rendition. should it be mentiond that it may not take place within the previous GTA cannon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.37.208 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't know since chances are we'll see some old faces from the previous series. But then it could be like GTA2 to GTA3 with no link between. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.114.119 (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

"Current Event"?

I've removed the current event tag, as the article had ended up with 3 different notices before the main paragraph even started, and in any case there's already one saying that it's an unreleased video game. I don't think 'current event' is really appropriate for a product in development anyway, is it? Paulfp 11:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this earlier. I agree. EntityHavoc 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

World Trade Center

This game is after or before the attacks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.12.213 (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

The "attacks" never happened in GTA, so that's irrelevant. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Official title

Rockstar have referred to the game as simply "IV" for a while now, and the trailer seems to back this up - making no mention of the GTA part. Is the title officially changed? I have created redirects from IV (game) etc for the time being. Yeanold Viskersenn 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that it'll be known as "IV", but I don't think the title's changed personally. I can't find any sources that say the title's officially changed. on the xbox.com page it shows what could be the full logo/name. It's trademarked. That's the first time I've seen the new IV with the words by it. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This game is gonna suck big time if it's just in liberty city again.