Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 1

Frpm WP:RfD:

• Grand Theft Auto IV → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The latter is not GTA4, despite being the fourth in the series; it's GTA 3 1/3, so to speak. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Grand Theft Auto 4. —Cryptic (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Grand Theft Auto V → Grand Theft Auto (series). GTA5 has not even been announced (as GTA4 will not be released until at least 2006). —Cryptic (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to me these two should be kept as redirects to Grand Theft Auto (series) to discourage article creation. --Carnildo 06:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

PS3 Online Episodes Still Possible

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64627&page=1 Im lucky I found it in the History, I don't understand why anyone would delete it though.

Probably because they can't face the facts, and will do anything to make it revolve aroudn the 360. JimmahCrocket 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Voice artists confimred

One of the sections mention that previous GTA voice artists have signed on, well wheres the link or info about this?

• The voice artists were originally announced on IMDB and have been reported in numerous news articles. They have since been removed from the IMDB listings, probably at the insistence of Rockstar, but not, I imagine, without good reason. I think the paragraph should be retained until we see good reason for its removal. Yeanold Viskersenn 00:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

gta4live stupidty

I moved this to the top because this is stupid and is seriously annoying me. The gta4live webmaster keeps readding the screenshot link to gta4live AND a link in external links to gta4live. I know its not that big a deal but its simply unfair against the many other (and probably better) gta fansites that this one fansite is getting quite a big and unfair advantage. Can the page just be locked again> azzytyb

If this is done by the webmaster of that site, it may be considered as advertising one's own site. Maybe you should report him for that. - Redmess 16:51, 22 August 2006 (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)

Proposal of rumors section

Yay or nay? The amount of rumors for this game over the course of the next 17 months will probably be huge. I can think of a few right now off the top of my head, specifically the fact that Rockstar registered the trademarks of "GTA: Bogota" (Bogota, Columbia?) and "GTA: Tokyo" (obviously Tokyo, Japan). This could very well be pointing to the location of GTA IV, which has yet to be announced. What do you all think? If so, I'll go ahead and add it. --JOK3R 15:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes. A lot of the rumors may be fluff, but until the game comes out, they at least give a possible idea for fans to look forward to. DemonWeb 15:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Added. :) Feel free to add new rumors and speculation as they come. :) --JOK3R 15:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Known Information

The 1st two bullets in the Known Information section are now obsolete. The official website for GTA IV has since been launched, and the 2nd PSP GTA game was already announced: Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories; to be released in October 2006. The 3rd bullet is a rumor. I'm going to look around for a source of the rumor or speculation, and move it down to the Rumors and Speculation section.

Does anyone have an idea on content for Known Information? I'd rather not delete what's in there until something else could be put in, but the information in there now needs to be changed a.s.a.p. --JOK3R 17:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK good job to whom ever made the change :) --JOK3R 19:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Add "PC" to "platforms"?

I'm 100% positive that it will be released on the PC, albeit more or less later. I am asking your opinion here. I know original research isn't allowed, but isn't it obvious since every and each GTA game has come out on PC (except for handheld systems, but I'm 100% sure they will come out for PC, too, the only exception being GTA: Advance, which has its obvious reasons)? San Andreas wasn't announced on PC when the first release dates were announced either. --nlitement ^[talk] 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Until the PC release is officially announced then I don't think it should be added. Perhaps put something in the rumours section if necessary. Yeanold Viskersenn 20:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait official announcement PC version will come probably only in 2008. --Ragnarok Addict 13:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact: Midnight Club 3 the DUB edition had never see its day in PC platform. will it be the same for GTA 4? I hope NOT!!

rumor cleanup

I tried to clean up the rumor section a bit, but it was immediately reverted, so I thought I'd raise the point for discussion. Over on the page about verifiability, the very first point reads:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

My understanding is that rumors are 100% fine, but only when they are actual published rumors that have been put out there by the game press, etc, and we are presenting that as fact (see also wikipedia is not a crystal ball which seems to also indicate this).

If I'm misinterpreting the policy, please tell me! My concern is that right now, this section simply reads like a random fan's wishlist/speculation. -Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 16:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I have removed the random speculation which doesn't mention sources at all. The Chicago quote isn't anywhere on google, but if it's cited it can go back in. I have also removed the entry about the registration of gta4.com - this is not a rumour, and is irrelevant now that the game has been officially announced. Also, the entry about European magazine articles should be kept - I created this entry and it originally did have a citation, but somebody deleted it and moved the page, so the history was deleted. Yeanold Viskersenn 03:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. There is some complete BS about numbers and names that makes no sense, and in the little sense that is made, it seems like the guy has a crystal ball. --Dec-G 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Chicago quote reers to an april-fools joke and should oubviouly not be mentioned here. Redmess 14:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, looking much better. I just went in and removed some speculation based on the logo. The game is a year and a half away (at least). The logo will probably change (more than once) between now and then. --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 17:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's real or not, but I'm fairly sure someone at Rockstar had the IV tattooed on their inside wrist. I saw some pictures from E3. 209.33.36.146

What's with all the fansites?

I thought "general consensus" on Wikipedia said that fansites were occasionally acceptable, and that only one should be linked to. There's tons of fansites on there, which only contain rumors and speculation. I'm going to go ahead and remove them. If anyone has any objections, please voice them.--DethFromAbove 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

GTA4.net has got to go. It hasn't been updated in a while and features outdated news. GTA4live.com is updated daily and doesn't focus on what users post in it's forum.

And GTA4live.com was updated for the first time June 22, 2006. I actually think we should remove both, they don't add anything new to the article, nothing new that isn't covered by Gamespot and IGN. Havok (T/C/c) 15:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I remove the fan sites, do not re-add them, they are non-notable at this time anyway. All the info one would ever need will come from the official site, gamespot and ign. Havok (T/C/c) 15:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does Havok have complete control over which fan sites are allowed to appear? You do not own this article. With all do respect Havok, the IGN and Gamespot ones offer nothing more than what's posted in the article and that's not really worthy of being placed in the article. At least the fan sites offer something new and different than what's found on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.4.169 (talk • contribs)

IGN and Gamespot are reputable, and are not shameless plugs added by the people who run the fan sites. Wikipedia is not a link repository, nor a way for you to advertise your site. Havok (T/C/c) 20:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this has gone on for this long. Can't we get an admin to protect this page from anonymous edits? Fansites don't belong in this article. It's not like I'm making this up. For fuck's sake, it's right here, in plain english. In extreme cases, only one fansite should be linked to. This is not an extreme case. There can be thousands of GTA IV fansites out there, but the fact is that they can't possibly have more info than official sites do. They are chock full of original research, rumors, and speculation, all of which are a no-no on Wikipedia. Anyone who insists on adding in a fansite should look at the guidelines and policy of Wikipedia before readding GTAIV Live. Also the tagline "Keeping you up to date on GTA IV" just cries out advertisement, which, among other things, ruins the objectivity of the article.

This is getting ridiculous.--DethFromAbove 07:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have allready asked for its protection, but it was rejected. Havok (T/C/c) 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold text DethFromAbove, no need contacting the webmaster of gta4.net, he is the one putting the link up. Havok (T/C/c) 09:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Installments

I've noticed a lot of people keep changing the first sentence with regards to which installment in the series this is, ranging from four to eight to nine to eleven. I think eleven is the correct number if you include all offical GTA games / expansions with original storylines and exclude ports. In fact I'll list all the games I think count as "instalments" in the GTA timeline:

1. Grand Theft Auto
2. Grand Theft Auto: London 1969
3. Grand Theft Auto: London 1961
4. Grand Theft Auto 2
5. Grand Theft Auto III
6. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
7. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
8. Grand Theft Auto Advance
9. Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories
10. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories (announced)
11. Grand Theft Auto IV (announced)

Yeanold Viskersenn 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The London series doesn't count because they are simply expansion packs to GTA1, and thus are not considered standalone games. Vice City, San Andreas, Advance and Liberty City Stories (no word yet on Vice City Stories), however, are all standalones, even though these games are based on GTA III. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ╫

The PS1 version of London 1969 was a stand-alone game, so it should definitely be counted.

No it wasn't. Even for the PS1 version of GTA: London 1969, you needed to own a copy of the original GTA. You had to put in the GTA: London disc, then at the prompt, swap out for the GTA1 disc. Once it's done reading the GTA1 disc, you had to swap back for the GTA: London disc. --Brandon Myers 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I still feel these count as seperate instalments of the game as they were all originally developed and released at seperate times. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

Why does everyone keep re-adding the fan sites, they are a shameless plug, and offer nothing more then what you can find on Gamespot and IGN. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Havok (T/C/c) 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed not a link repository, however it looks like these fansite people aren't going to go away, so I thought it would at least be a good idea to have an official and an unofficial links section, and at least then the links are clearly labeled for what they are. I've seen quite a lot of other wiki pages with extensive fansite listings. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And if I come across them, they will be trimmed down. It was a good idea, but why mention them when they add nothing to the article? They are only there because the people adding them own the site and want more trafic, meaning they are advertisments for the site. If one day the site actually has some content that would deem it unique, it may be re-added. Havok (T/C/c) 00:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is the IMDb site up there? It serves no purpose until information about casts/characters are released, correct? Like fansites, I think it should be removed as well.

Article has now be s-protected because of link spammers.--Andeh 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested Change

someone please s/new fake GTA IV screenshot/ new allegedly fake GTA IV screenshot

• It's not allegedly fake, it's been officially renounced by Rockstar. Yeanold Viskersenn 19:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why this article can't link to more than one screenshot that has caused a lot of speculation.

If the screenshot was fake, then the speculation is not based on any evidence as far as we know. Unless there is other evidence than the fake screenshot present, this speculation should not be mentioned, I think. - Redmess 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GTA4Live fake screenshot speculation

Here we go again. Someone keeps trying to weasel in a GTA4Live link. I thought we'd agreed that it had no place in this article. I distinctly remember this article being protected because of shameless spamming, and not a week later someone is at it again. There's a screenshot there that has been proved fake. However, there's already speculation surrounding another screenshot under the rumors section. I know of at least 5 other fake GTA 4 screenshots, why not link to them too? I've reverted the edit numerous times, as it advertises the fansite. The person adding the link back in claims that the image has a lot more speculation around it than the original one posted. This may be true, but I thought speculation was frowned upon. One image is enough. If you really want that image in the article, why not link to the site that had it first? Besides having a substantially larger following on the internet, it's even endorsed by Rockstar themselves (see the San Andreas instruction manual). Or you could host it on ImageShack. Either way GTA4Live isn't going to get any hits from this article anymore.--DethFromAbove 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i dont understand why the two screenshots are being linked to. First and foremost, if the second screenshot stays on the article, it should be linked to an imageshack image or similar, not to gta4live because the site is as a result unfairly getting visitors. Also, both screenshots have been proven to be fake. This means that each was probably made by one person creating what they felt gtaIV would look like. Surely neither of the images has a place on this listing. They represent the views of one person and, like the rumours section, should as a result be removed. Yes they gained a lot of speculation from the public and were talked about a lot but they tell the reader of the article nothing about the game and as a result have no place here. ~ azzytyb

ok, here's the deal. I dont think either screenshot adds anything to the article. They're fake and have nothing to do with the game so why are they here. The first one though is just a link to an image which is fine but the second links to gta4live and is giving them hits! I saw that someone had removed the second screenshot and its link to gta4live, then it was back, so i removed it, and now its back again. It adds nothing to the article and im all but certain that it is the gta4live webmaster who is readding it. So im going to remove it again, and keep removing it each time i check unless someone provides a good reason for it to be there ~azzytyb

OKI, EACH TIME I REMOVE TH GTA4LIVE.COM LINK, IT IS SIMPLY READDED, THIS FURTHER PERPETUATES THE IDEA THAT THE LINK IS MERELY A SHAMLESS WAY FOR GTA4LIVE TO GET FURTHER HITS. THIS IS IN CAPS TO GET ATTENTION. SURELY THERE IS A WAY TO BLOCK THE GTA4LIVE WEBMASTER FROM CONSTANTLY READDING THE LINK

Note about the GTA fansites

I'd like to clear some things up about all the fansite spamming that is going on. First of all, Rockstar do NOT 'endorse' any fansites as mentioned in this talk page. Rockstar have a webring, in which are the most popular and reputable fansites which have been around for years, they are in email contact with Rockstar and receive unwatermarked screenshots after IGN and gamesport write their name all over them. The fansites also have priveledges such as being told by Rockstar when there will be official website updates, this is before the general public and general gaming websites such as IGN and gamespot.

AFTER GTAIV has been released I think it would be benficial to WikiPedia readers that a few fansites are added, for the simple reason that they are run by dedicated individuals who have a passion for the series, and do their utmost to keep up to date, and have all the information anyone could ever want, moreso than IGN and Gamespot, who simply add FAQs and guides for missions etc.

Fansites (English ones) currently in Rockstar's webring are: gtanet.com, planetgta.com, gtagaming.com, thegtaplace.com, gtawh.com, gta-sanandreas.com and gtacentral.com. (gtapsp.com and gtaportable.com are also there but they obviously don't cover GTAIV as it's not for the PSP)

OK so that's seven decent fansites, if any others are added, then yes, we should remove them, but these seven are the biggest and most reputable.

Please remember that I have stated that these could be added AFTER the game's release, not now, as yes, this is spamming since nobody really knows anything about the game.

Finally, a note about GTA4live.com, they are a very new GTA fansite, starting up less than a month ago, if one would perform a whois lookup they would see the domain as being registered on the 22nd June. So having said this, I think it's obvious they have been link spamming, seeing as they are so new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.210.138 (talk • contribs)

As stated above, wp is not a link repository. If the websites add more info to the article then is available trough sites such as gamespot and ign, they should not be added. Why? Because it will seem like an invite to add more fansites. And adding 7 websites as you say will only clutter up the external links section, and there is absolutly no reason to do so, not even after the game is released. Havok (T/C/c) 22:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV?

Is this true? GTA 4 comes at October 2007? But I thought they only have three cities like San Andreas, Vice City and Liberty City. What's next? Best Gamer

We don't know what's next because no information has been released by rockstar about the game. That's why the page is currently so bare; apart from the release date and release platforms, nothing is known. Also, in the game info bit on the right, it said PS3 and Xbox 360 as release platforms but under the release date section, it said xbox and ps2 so i have changed this to ps3 and 360

I dunno, London?I added something mentioning that because I read it in Games Master.And it would make perfect sense.Centurion Ry 21:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive?

I thought GTA was exclusive to 360? They signed a deal. me > you 18:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Malik1

Correction, the 360 has a deal with Rockstar that states that the 360 will receive Exclusive, Episodic Content. Although, the PS3 has not been ruled out of this Episodic Content. Seeing as Rockstar's previous contracts only lasted for a few months (e.g. after releasing GTAVC -- the releases of GTAIII + VC for the XBox came soon after) -- I'd expect the content on the PS3 BUT THAT'S JUST ME.

gta london

gta london IS a stand alone game,and has been for ages. d*ckheads. and whoever still thinks gta 4 is gonna be in america needs to get their facts straight.

If it was a stand alone game, tell me why exactly you needed the GTA1 CD? Hmm? -- Thought so. Before you come onto Wikipedia and e-disrespect everyone, get your facts straight. And there is no confirmation that GTA will be set outside or inside of America. We'll have to wait and find out -- wanker. --The IP guy from the above discussion posts

I'm not sure if this means anything but, I was the guy who put in the london stuff.

This is not an argument board. Remember that, no matter if the first guy was a deusche chill

*E-chills* You're right...but still, ticked me off just a little bit. --The IP guy from the above discussion posts

hey arsehole GTA LONDON IS A STAND alone game and has been for ages, youre on about, a million years ago when the first gta came out,since then its been a game of its own. so f*ck u. oh and dont try and pretend you're cool cause you said "wanker" because we all know youre just some sad american.

friggin geeks....

*Sigh* You my friend need to lay off the Internet for a while. Get a job or volunteer...NSRegentPark 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

shut up u sad freak. u dont know anything.sittin there tuggin off over gta...very sad.get a life. shows how much u know because gta london has been a game of its own since about 7 years ago...."sigh" .

Okay, I think this has gone far enough. I have stated my argument for why GTA London 1969 is not a stand alone game. Where is your argument? Where is your evidence that supports your inane statements? All you've been doing is giving me this argument a 6-year old would give. Until you can come up with some substantial evidence...then I think you really should get a job. NSRegentPark 10:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything that we can do to get this person whose pointless use of coarse language is so untactful that he even chooses to edit it sometimes kicked off? I was just curious.

Ban him! Course, that, I have no idea how to do...

GTA The World

Don't you people thing they should make "Grand THeft Auto IV" taking place all over the world, including Liberty City, Vice City, San Andreas (Los Santos, San Fierro, Las Venturas), and even London or Carcer City? Just an opinion.

That will probably be on PS5.--DethFromAbove 07:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

PS5???????!!!!!!!!! THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME!!!!!!!

PS5? Nope. The PS3's Blu-Ray can handle all 6 of those cities at a given time. Believe me, I've ran through the numerous details and its possible. Consider this, the Blu Ray can hold 50 GB (25GB/25GB on both sides). Now VC+LC are probably 5GB and San Andreas is 4.8GB, so all together 10GB. Add in graphical improvements, music, etc. that'll be 15GB at least. Add in Carcer and London, and that'll be another 15-20 GB, so it's very feasible IMO.NSRegentPark 11:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please adhere to talk page guidelines. Talk pages are used for discussing changes in the Grand Theft Auto IV article, not Grand Theft Auto IV itself or general chatter. Thanks. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ╫

xbox will be dead by then..ps5 sould own everything

Once again, please adhere to talk page guidelines. Talk pages are used for discussing changes in the Grand Theft Auto IV article, not Grand Theft Auto IV itself or general chatter, especially about the "PS5" or about GTA 4 features. Thanks. BishopTutu 02:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

erasing some stuff

i erased 'europeans are saturated of gta being set in usa',this is not neutral and Gta is a parody of Usa BY THE WAY

• Do you know the definition of the word "saturated"? It says many countries are saturated with American culture and media, meaning that you can buy a Coke or a Pepsi pretty much anywhere in the world and a lot of countries' TV stations have programmes syndicated from the USA. I think you somehow misread that as "Europeans do not want GTA in the USA" :S Yeanold Viskersenn 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• That has nothing to do with gta IV,and i bet you the guy who wrote this is from london ;)and yes maybe the world is saturated with usa products but this is gta IV --takes out a shotgun and kills moe ;)
• No, i'm not from London. The point I am making is that the two voice artists so far announced have featured in GTA games set in the USA, but this does not necessarily mean that the next one will be set in the States, so yes it does have something to do with GTA IV. And by the way I didn't even mention London. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• --survives being shot-- hehe ~ moe 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • It looks like we have got an old fashioned cat fight. May the best girl win.User:Manofthespoon|Manofthespoon]] 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

If this game is set in 2007, then shouldn't they make it take place all over USA? Maybe we'll see if the Fort Staunton construction project was completed in Liberty. Who could be the head of the Leone organization, Joey or Toni? Who the leader of the Yakuza? Is Vercetti's organization still in control of Vice City. Is CJ still a gangbanger? Is Claude still residing in Liberty City?

1)sign your posts |2)it won't be all over the world |3)don't know maybe toni|4)don't know |5)maybe|6)CJ was never a gangbanger|7)Claude went to anywhere city and was killed by the zaibatsu in 2013~ moe 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Image Suggeston

It originally was a PS3 box, now its an xbox360 box (dont understand the change). Why not just crop out the xbox and ps3 things and just have the logo, since it will be released on multiple platforms ChopAtwa 10:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree - Both cover arts are fake anyway. I uploaded the original image with just the logo, but someone phsyically deleted my file and replaced it with the Photoshopped one. Yeanold Viskersenn 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're talking about the ripped version, right? I removed the black to neaten it up, but the format casing was different so it didn't replace your image the first time around. I didn't delete it, just uploaded over it. Goroliath

• • Right, but why edit the original image? It's not as if it didn't look neat - why is a white background better than the original black? You've also removed the white stroke and the trade mark logo, both of which I would consider to be integral parts of the design as it stands. It seems like a pointless alteration - replacing the logo, exactly as it appears on the site, with one you've doctored yourself. Yeanold Viskersenn 16:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • What the, are you serious? I removed the black, it's a PNG with transparency, you can't see the white border because of the white background... anyway, do what you like, but the ripped version looks better. Goroliath

Sorry to butt in on this, but in my opinion the logo should look exactly the same as it appears on the GTA4 website. Editing it is a way of changing information and therefore would be inaccurate. BillPP ^(Talk) 12:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Goroliath

WHOA

Guys, there's been some HUGE vandalism in the article, and it looks to be widespread. Some examples of this are "Also listed as part of the GTA IV cast is Navid Khonsari, who voiced the porn host in Max Payne 2" and "Take-Two Interactive registered the trademarks GTA: Bogota and GTA: Vagina Land." and "It is possible that GTA IV will be a MMOG, due to network programming blowjob positions".

I haven't got time to clean all of them up as I'm going to bed right now, but could someone please do a search and revert it to before the offending statements were made?

--Dilcoe

Done =) SOADLuver 18:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Navid Khonsari DID voice the porn host. Yeanold Viskersenn 19:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok I thought it was vandalism.readd that part SOADLuver 19:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Rumours and Speculation Section

I was reading the Rumours and Speculation section and came across the following information

Rockstar have announced that they have "no plans" to release a port of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories on the PS2. This is most likely due to the fact that the majority of Rockstar's development resources are now being focused on the development of GTA IV [12] and the poor response to Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories being ported to the PS2.

I was wondering why this is important to this page, as it is dealing with another branch of the GTA series. Unless there is a reason presented, I recommend that it be discarded soon. Manofthespoon 01:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I added this piece of trivia thinking it added a little more insight into the development of the game, but yes, in hindsight it's not that useful at all. Feel free to get rid of it. Yeanold Viskersenn 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GTA 4: Heart of Dixie

An articles was released in "Gaming Monthly" about the instalment taking place in southern cities based on Atlanta, New Orleans, and Memphis. The article went into full detail about each level and the game seemed like it was set up like San Andreas. I doubt that the game will be based on any International city, because the rest of the world are liberal ignorant tongue twisted freaks and the countries they come have no importance and also finally America is the only thing that really matters, besides who cares about the rest of the world?