Jump to content

Talk:Rockstar North

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 03:26, 2 October 2013 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 60d) to Talk:Rockstar North/Archive 1.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Rockstar North Origin Problem

Sorry for the inconvenience, I kept on clicking on the wrong talk page hyperlink and nothing would appear (also I made this account). Now to the main point, I have had a Problem with the origin of the Rockstar North Head Quarters, it is clearly in the heart of Scotland, Edinburgh but it states it is on British land which is also true but misleading and not giving enough credit to the country it is located, Scotland. I know this problem has gone on for many years, for example, Andy Murray is a famous Tennis player, he is known as a British Tennis player when he succeeding in his career and he is known as a Scottish Tennis player when he is preceding in his career. With the launch of Rockstar North's new installment to Rockstar Games' "Best-Selling" franchise, Grand Theft Auto V , Grand Theft Auto enthusiasts like myself would like to learn something new from its developers. I know it states it is located in Scotland but I could be more specific since the majority of the world thinks that Scotland is a County in the country Great Britain. I could come to an agreement if we let visitors of the page know that it was located in the Country Scotland and the sovereign state Britain instead of them thinking that Scotland is a County in the Country Britain. - MisterFR3SH 01 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your points separately:
1) "British" is misleading. Doesn't give credit to Scotland: The article clearly states in the first line and in the infobox, that the company is in Scotland. This is not a question of what land it is on. British is a non-governmental term that refers to anywhere in the British Isles. It is akin to calling a person from Nigeria and a person from Zambia, both Africans. People and companies from The British Isles are called British and Britons, this is totally independent of any notion of a nation. If Scotland votes for devolution, people from Scotland will still be British because they live on the Island of Great Britain in the British Isles. The disagreement seems to stem from the use of Britain as a short-form synonym for The United Kingdom, which is a nation state made up of its constituent parts. Scotland is part of the UK so the term British is correct. Scotland is also part of Great Britian, so again British is correct. The article then explicitly avoids confusion by stating the location of the company offices is Scotland.
2) Andy Murray is British when he wins and Scottish fails: I can only suggest you stop reading the tabloids and head down south where you will find that loads of non-Scots support him regardless of his birth place. The only time you may find people not liking him is when they don't know that his "anyone but England" statement was a misquoted private joke.
3) "The World thinks that Scotland is a county in Great Britain:" Like I said, Great Britain isn't a country. "The World" may be getting confused with the fact that Scotland along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal partners in the country that is The United Kingdom, but short of putting an explanation of the UK, Britain, British etc on the front page of Wikipaedia, I'm not sure how we solve the World ignorance that you mention.
4) Agreement if we let visitors know location is Country Scotland and the sovereign state Britain instead of them thinking that Scotland is a County in the Country Britain: The article already lets people know that the company is located in Scotland.
This debate raises the question of how do you define the nationality of a company? Which of the following apply?:
"Its in Scotland" - "Rockstar North is a Scottish video game developer..."
"Its in Great Britain" - "Rockstar North is a British video game developer..."
"Its in the UK" - "Rockstar North is a British video game developer..."
"Its American owned" - "Rockstar North is an American video game developer..."
"Its staff are from numerous countries" - "Rockstar North is a multinational video game developer..."
The present form is a long standing consensus that covers all the information that a reader needs. - X201 (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, you win but Rockstar Toronto Head Quarters is located in Canada but on its Wikipedia page, it states it is a Canadian based company, not a North American company. I do not read tabloids, I watch Wimbledon when it is on, and it normally states that Murray is British when he is succeeding and Scottish hen he is preceding giving Scotland a bad name, an unfortunately, that is shown around the world, making watchers think that Scotland is a bad place even though it has one of the finest game developers in the world and a beautiful landscape. I just think that it is unfair but I am not everyone. - MisterFR3SH 01 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am of the opinion that Rockstar North is a British video game developer based in... is the appropriate way of phrasing it. Firstly, currently Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales make up the United Kingdom. When you register a company within any of these countries, you register it within the United Kingdom, not the individual companies. The location/headquarters etc can be based in a country but the company is based in the United Kingdom. People and entities from the UK are referred to as British, ergo, they are a British Company. Looking at other articles (such as Id software) they tend to start with X is a <american/british/iranian> video game company based in <city/state/country> etc. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 16:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Why don't we focus off nationality and focus on it as an entity of Rockstar Games? For example:

Rockstar North is a video game development studio of Rockstar Games located in Edinburgh, Scotland. Then the rest of the lead

--Edit I didn't purposely leave off formally DMA and the VGD link, I just paraphrased and forgot the link

This way the Rockstar Games has "credit" of ownership of Rockstar North. Also in the opening sentence, it doesn't really matter where Rockstar Games is located but what does matter is where Rockstar North is located since that's what this article is about. As as side note, the lead really needs to be rewritten to fit the guidelines of a lead

Anyway, just my opinion. ChadH (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is of my opinion, that it is fine the way it is. It is just various political nationalistic views coming across. It's fine the way it is. People need to get over this "I'm not British, I'm Scottish, I'm English blah blah blah" Point is, the world mostly knows the UK as the UK. they already get confused with "Oh you live in England, how wonderful, do you know the Queen?" As long as it shows that it is based in Scotland then it should be fine, but is still British (It will be registered with the companies people in London). As for the American, well American is, one could argue, made up of countries (states) to form a United States (lets face it, some are bigger than Scotland) just like the UK which in turn is made up of different states/countries. MisterShiney 07:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dailly

I do not know who keeps adding this fictional person to these articles but....

  1. Mike Dailly was not a founder of DMA Design Ltd, therefore he did not invent Grand Theft Auto
  2. DMA Design was a subsidiary of DMA Design Ltd
  3. Rockstar was actually founded by Sam & Dan Houser
  4. Rockstar Games, bought out DMA Design Ltd
  5. DMA Design Ltd invented Grand Theft Auto, not DMA Design
  6. The only relevant source that this person had anything to do with Grand Theft Auto is a registered domain

owned by that very person, who clearly states in the copyright disclaimer that...

Text © Copyright 2004-2006 By Mike Dailly
All rights reserved.

dmadesign.org is in no way assosiated with DMA Design Ltd, Take-2 or Rockstar Studios.

So please remove all of this unfactual information. And for that matter the company has no records of employing a Russell Kay in their enitre history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.218.211 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 10 February 2013‎

Hello, I assume you have a source for this information? I say so, because it is more than likely that if it is included in the article, because it is such a specific piece of detailed information, that it is cited and sourced appropriately. MisterShiney 18:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish company rather than British?

"Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design Ltd) is a British video game developer based in Edinburgh, Scotland"

I think the new text should read "Rockstar North (formerly DMA Design Ltd) is a Scottish video game developer based in the Capital City Edinburgh"

The reason for this is that Scotland is a more specific location and recognised internationally easier than "Britain". With all due respect to non-Brits reading this, it is a well known fact that people living outside of Britain are often unclear about what Britain is actually made up of. I think calling it Scottish and identifying Edinburgh as the Capital City will make the location instantly recognisable.

I'd like to hear your views on this.

Many thanks,

Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelc840 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you aren't already aware, if you really are looking for views on this you could read the two lengthy discussions that have already taken place above. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the previous posts but thanks for your suggestion. I have read the previous posts and feel that the argument is in favour of having Britain changed to Scotland. If no valid argument is presented against changing the post to Scotland withihn the next 10 days, I will proceed to edit the opening paragraph to read Scotland rather than Britain and if any attempts are made to reverse this back to Britain I will have no option but to undo their change and report the user of vandalism to the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelc840 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really haven't made any new points so far that haven't already been addressed, so I don't see how it warrants changing the stable version of the article. As has been said repeatedly, the current wording includes what is likely the nation that the company is registered under (UK), as well as where it is physically located (Scotland). Also, please don't try to preemptively threaten other editors. While it is amusing, it's not very constructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the topic has been brought up multiple times already and the current lead seems to acknowledge both sides. The repeated changes can lead to unwarranted edit warring. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joining Take-Two

Hi,

Just noticed that in the intro this states that Rockstar North has been a part of Take-Two Interactive since 2002, "Since early 2002 the company has been a part of the multinational company Rockstar Games, owned by Take-Two Interactive." which is not true.

Rockstar was initially bought by Take-Two from Infograms in September 1999 and then changed its name initially to Rockstar Studio's in March 2002 then Rockstar North in May of the same year.

Links for reference: Take-Two take over http://uk.gamespot.com/news/take-two-acquires-dma-design-2450265

Rockstar Studio's rename: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2002/03/19/scottish-developer-becomes-rockstar http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/article_45659


Rockstar North Rename: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2002/05/24/e3-2002-rockstar-studios-changes-name-again


Could we get this changed? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.job99 (talkcontribs) 14:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Merging Topics

Hi everybody,

I was looking through this article today and I would like to propose merging some of the section headers. If we moved the DMA Arrangement into the Mid 90's section and created a new late 90's section to include the release of GTA 1 and 2, as well as Space Station Silicon Valley and Body Harvest then made a new Early 2000's section to cover the companies move from Dundee to Edinburgh as well as the focus on GTA and Manhunt after the Take Two buy it it would make the article more structured and more informative.

Happy to make these changes myself but thought I would reach out to the community here first, thanks Juno.808 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]