Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

We're getting rid of Ars Technica's negative review

. He asked for five, I accidentally gave him four. It gave a bad view for thew wrong reasons...In other words, it ignorantly criticized it. For instance, they complained that GTA 4 is smaller than San Andreas, obviously san andreas is larger because it has deserts and what not...GTA 4 is prodigiously more detailed than San Andreas so no doubt it'd be smaller...They're asking for the impossible in the review, and it's not proffesional at all. It's out. Badboysbadoyswhatugonnado (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You removed it because you don't agree with their review? I'm putting it back. Bill (talk|contribs) 20:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If there were a better negative review, I'd say include that instead - but there isn't, which speaks to the popularity of the game. We need to balance the coverage, though, otherwise it's a "praise" section instead of a "reception" section. Agree with keeping the ref. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Negative opinions have been expressed about the game(such as at 1up), however few in easily citeable sources. Either provide a better reason than "it ignorantly criticized it", or leave it in. John.n-IRL 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We need more negative reviews added to balance it out and to add interest. Reading about how perfect a game is can be pretty boring, and POV. JayKeaton (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Good luck finding them. Frankly, when a game is so universally praised, IMO having a "balanced" number of good and bad reviews would in and of itself be pov! A single negative review is probably just about ample due weight for the small number of negative reviews the game is getting.
I have no idea what Badboys' thinking was asking to have it removed, though... yeah, at least ONE negative review is a good thing. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I added another link to a list of criticisms for GTA IV. Also, if you read various message boards, you will find that these criticisms are being echoed by gamers, and state that it does not deserve the overwhelming scores.Richiekim (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to add a couple of points about its downsides, poor graphics on trees and the fact you can't customise your vehicles, or even choose it's colour during a respray, but someone keeps deleting it. Am I doing something wrong? It's not an expression of personal opinion, I think they're fair criticisms, but I'm not a professional reviewer... just a disappointed bloke who bought it :] Maj0r Tom (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Are they reliably sourced? If not, then they are personal opinions. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The only citation I can produce is a screenshot showing some awful trees. But you can't get a more reliable source than the game itself! Just look at them. Eurgh. It's not opinion really, it's just a fact.. the trees are amazingly bad and worthy of mention. Would a screenshot do?Maj0r Tom (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is opinion. Basically you'd be saying "look at these trees, they're really bad". Some people may think they're good looking trees and could use a screenshot to say "look at these trees, they're really good". As it's based on opinion it needs a reliable source commenting on it. Bill (talk|contribs) 13:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll personally award anyone who thinks they're good with a new pair of spectacles. See what you mean though, it's not good policy, but it is true in this case. The trees are bad. Driver on the PS1 bad!Maj0r Tom (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a strict no original research rule for articles. Find a source, preferably a reliable one. Also, discussion boards are not a proper source, and are fairly unreliable. Of course, every highly reviewed game is going to arouse a fair share of skeptics, this is common. Can you provide statistical evidence that diaapointed members of message boards represent a significant public opinion on GTA IV? Until there has been a proper survey done on the subject, saying "well all my friends said", or "a lot of people complaining on message boards", is not "evidence" that the game doesn't deserve its positive views. It only proves that not everyone believes the hype, which is no surprise. In fact, average reader scores have been high too, showing more evidence that the general opinion among gamers is positive, albiet not as high an average professional reviewers. This is still not significant evidence that the game is overhyped eithier, since many other factors can effect an average reader score (the possiblility that dissapointed players are more likely to review a game, for example)--Jtd00123 (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

gps in cars

voice gps can be activated on all cars in the options menu.

69.231.156.65 (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)kirbyx

Have you got a source for that? Otherwise it can't be mentioned in the article, as it would be WP:OR. John Hayestalk 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the source would be the game itself :P --SkyWalker (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This sort of obvious primary information does not need to be referenced. Neıl 龱 13:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We should not source the game if at all possible as 1) it is impossible for readers without the game to verify. 2) a third party source is a sign that this is a notable feature (which I don't think this is). John Hayestalk 15:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Responding to point #1, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." It is just like citing newspaper or magazine articles (that aren't available online), most people won't have a copy. We just have to list as much details as possible on where the information can be found. - kollision (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I was about to say something along those lines, but you beat me to it. On a similar note point number #1 is "incorrect" in wording - its hard, not impossible; there is a crucial difference. Now if a source was on the moon, then that'd be near-impossible --Vylen (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reference that could be used? Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No. Other Wikis cannot be used as a reliable source, for obvious reasons. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but in theory a magazine or newspaper will be stored in some sort of archive (like all the books published in Britain are in the British Library). There isn't such an archive for games. Clearly Wikipedia does allow for games to be cited, but if there is a third party source which can be easily accessed then we should use that instead (and meets point 2). In reply to Vylen how is it possible to verify info in a game if you don't own a copy (without third party sources) I'm assuming you don't just mean borrow a copy from someone else, as even then we can't guarantee everyone knows someone who owns it? In conclusion I'm not saying we can't ever source the game, but generally there should never be any need to. John Hayestalk 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The more important issue, in my mind, is that just about all of the little factoids for which people want to use the game as a reference aren't really very encyclopedic anyway. From an encyclopedic standpoint, why do we care that the voice-enabled GPS can be turned on in all cars? The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about the game in the context of the broader world. Little details like that are only relevant for players of the game, and for that, go get a strategy guide or something. Or, heh, the IGN's GTAIV Wiki for that matter...
Sort of by definition, if a particular aspect of gameplay is relevant in the broader context, then a 3rd-party source will have mentioned it. Otherwise, how is it significant in the broader context?
That said, I'm not ruling out that someone could conceivably make a strong case for referencing the game. If the game had been very explicit about Niko's nationality, for example, I would not be opposed to referencing the game for that (unfortunately, the game only implies and hints, therefore it is too WP:OR to reference the game). But I really haven't seen any requests to reference the game for anything that is relevant in the broader context beyond just a list of Fun Facts About Grand Theft Auto!(TM) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. If third party sources don't cover it there is almost certainly no need for it to be in the article. John Hayestalk 17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, the game itself is an adequate reference for plot description, gameplay mechanics, etc. Neıl 龱 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle Damage

In the paragraph describing possible damage to the car, is it worth mentioning that if you shoot the tires out of a car that the rubber will fly off at speeds? The bare rims then scar the road and eventually set on fire (usually) leading to the explosion of the car!

I'm new here so please accept my apologies if i've raised this the wrong way Metallicadam (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Metallicadam 16:24 19 May

Probably not... There's also the fact that you need reliable sources other than "playing the game" that back up this particular behaviour of vehicular damage. --Vylen (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll become a university professor and will star regularly publishing "reliable sources" for things in no need of verification to make you who interpret policies in a retarded and pedantic way cum. Because you just cannot live without that, can you. --nlitement [talk] 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, first of all, that comment was not constructive. In addition, your scenario doesn't work anyway. Nobody is going to publish somebody else's "research paper" where the main point is to list vehicle damage animations in GTAIV. You could publish it yourself, but Wikipedia does not consider self-published material to be a reliable source (for obvious reasons).
In any case, please try to understand the rules before you ridicule people for enforcing them. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The game itself (<ref name="gtaiv"/>) is a perfectly acceptable reference for gameplay mechanics. Neıl 龱 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't reject sourcing the game altogether, it is something to be avoided. Take this very example (which I don't think is relevant enough to include in the article, but let's just run with it anyway). I've played the game a good ten hours or so. I think I saw what Metallicadam refers to once, but I'm not entirely convinced. Was it that the bare rims were sparking on the road that caused the fire, or was it that the vehicle had just taken so much damage that it caught fire anyway? I'm not actually convinced either way. I'd have to specifically create that scenario a number of times, and try to make some assessment of the amount of damage the car had received. Now we are getting pretty WP:ORy.
Referencing the game's manual is fine. Referencing text or dialogue in the game is also fine. Referencing the game for gameplay mechanics is probably okay for very uncontroversial and obvious things, although it should be avoided if possible because of the ambiguity of interpretation I mentioned. Referencing the game for controversial things that aren't explicitly stated in text of dialogue is not practical. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

what happens when Niko dies?

Thanks for the very informative article. (I don't play video games, but I'm curious.) A few things that could be clarified:

  • does Niko die if his health level reaches zero?
  • what happens when Niko dies?
  • does he wake up in the nearest hospital?
  • or is that the end of the game?
  • or does the player backtrack to a point where Niko was still in good health?
  • is there the option to backtrack?

I guess a lot of this would go without saying for someone who plays, but not everyone reading wp does.--24.85.68.231 (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As with every GTA game, death results in failing the current mission and being sent to the hospital afaik. You are right, that's not clear from the article but that's just an in-game detail and there is thus imho no necessity to include it into the article. --SoWhy Talk 11:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is already written in the article: "When Niko's health level reaches zero, he respawns at the nearest hospital, but loses 10% of his total wealth (up to a maximum of $10,000). Unlike previous GTA games, Niko is able to retain his weapons after re-spawning at a hospital; they are still confiscated if he is arrested and brought to the police station" --Vylen (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

first game where you can kill animals?

Is this the first game where you can kill animals? (the flying rats) 202.156.66.110 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You were able to shoot birds in flight in previous games, but it's the first game where killing pigeons was a game mechanic. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer highest rated game

As of May 18, 2008 GTA IV is no longer the highest rated game on Gamerankings (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/simpleratings.asp?rankings=y). This should be changed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.216.134 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

N Not done - Can't be arsed :) Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done - Unlike my lazy friend above me, I actually bothered. It is only mentioned in the introduction though, so if you can find it elsewhere. Well, be my guest. It may need better fixing though! --Svippong 17:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I couldn't have anyway, because my account isn't older than 4 days (will be in a few hours though) :P Meaty♠Weenies (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, check the link. GTA4 still is the highest rated game, 1 - GTA 4 (360), 2 - Ocarina in time, 3 - GTA 4 (PS3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkey4boro (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we know what war he's been in?

Ok, so we've finally decided that Niko is of an "unspecified balkan nationality", but how kan we be so sure it was the Bosnian War he was in? Couldn't it have been the Kosovo War? In one mission when Niko talks about it, it its said that it was ten yers ago; 1998. The Bosnian lasted was between 1992 and '95. The Kosovo War was however between '96 and '99. --DaGrob (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We "kan't". This game is purely meant to be fictional, all events (including ones that never happened in that era) that were real can be obviously false. Remember Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? The San Andreas fault was an event that happened over 90 years before that era. In the game, it also shows the aftermath of the earthquake (highway torn in half). Therefore, although the names can be real, the event itself can be entirely different. I suggest that you play the game, enjoy it, and remember that it's just a game. This way, no one can be killed because of some 13 year old kid played Grand Theft Auto and shot his mother because he thought it was "GANGSTUH!!!!". Ellomate (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

These are my opinions.

First of all, I'm pretty sure Niko says he has been “Searching for someone, for the last 10 years”… He never actually says the war “happened” or “ended” 10 years ago per-say. If, for example, the war WAS ten years ago in the game’s storyline… how can he “grow up” in a war-torn country if by 1996, the time of the Kosovo conflict, he was an adult?... considering the game’s “Love Meet” Profile on Niko says he is 30 in 2008. In 1991-1992 he was 13-14. He was “Very, very young & very, very stupid” as Niko explains. By 1994, when the conflict in Bosnia was most heavy, he was 16. Still, very young & delusional. He was still “maturing” whilst in the country. I also believe the Bosnian War created a much more serious & longer lasting catastrophe… the war in Kosovo wasn’t as brutal, as Niko makes his war out to be. More people have died in the Bosnian War, calculating over 50,000 soldiers & 38,000 civilians killed from all sides. The Kosovo War calculates 8,000… with 1,000 of those being Yugoslav civilians. The Bosnian War was also less supervised, whereas NATO was much more prepared & tried very hard to end the conflict in Kosovo.

Therefore, in my opinion, seeing as the Bosnian War was very much larger & longer lasting in affects… as well as much more relative to his childhood life… it reserves a place in Niko’s story. Of course, I still believe the “10 year term” refers to his time of “Searching for someone”… rather than “when” the war happened, or ended.

Although, even if we were to go with the “Kosovo War” logic… the war in Kosovo did not finish until late 1999… & yet 10 years ago, it would have been the start of 1998. This logic is still not ‘chronologically’ correct as which you seek. Jas315 (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Article written in British English

My question is, why? While Rockstar is based in NY, USA.... the studio that developed GTA is located in Scotland, neither place is in Britain. 209.78.214.253 (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Juniormafia

Last time I checked, Scotland was in the United Kingdom. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Shoudn't it be written in Scottish English then? "Ach! Niko Bellic nee be a Serbian, but rather be a Scottish lad, I say! And dare I nee mention the things you can do with the bonny lassies of the night..." Um, nevermind. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a bonnie wee kalashnikov you got there, laddie. Trade ya an irn-bru fer it, alrite? Gazimoff WriteRead 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

can someone go back and retype this in Scottish English, then? you bunch of wee lads! lol, but seriously, why British English? 209.78.214.253 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Juniormafia

Because of, once again, a large altercation over it in the form of an edit war. Goes right along with the "aeroplane" BS. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Actual answer - this sort of dispute comes up over and over and over and over and over. And over. Which is why we have a guideline - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. As an argument could be made based on the origins of the game for both American English (Rockstar is based in New York) or British (the studio is based in Britan) English, the rule of thumb is "stick with whichever one the article was first written in". So, British English. If you do not know Scotland is in Britain, you are unofficially not allowed to edit, ever. (well, okay, you can still edit, but don't make that mistake again! Neıl 龱 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

To make a complete clarification of this. The software GTA IV runs on is written in British English. Now I don't happen to have a piece of the source code, but I do have access to certain plain text modifiers (such as handling.dat, which contains all the vehicles in the game and their handling, not their 3D design, mind you). In this specific file (i.e. handling.dat), all the comments are in British English. I see centreofmass, I see metres, I see tyres, and so on. However, as Neil pointed out, the original creator used British English, so keep it that way. --Svippong 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Case closed... just an unrelated question, since Neil is an expert. Does Great Britain = United Kingdom? if so, why do they have separate articles? I really don't know, I am truly curious. 209.78.214.253 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Juniormafia

Great Britain refers to the island (which part of the United Kingdom), United Kingdom is a country, which also includes Northern Ireland, but that is not part of Great Britain!  :O --Svippong 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Svip 209.78.214.253 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Juniormafia

Easiest way to remember it - Great Britain is an island (the largest of the British Isles). The United Kingdom is a country (full name - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Neıl 龱 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Console Resolution

the Playstation 3 output resolution is actually 720p, 1080i or 1080p. Not the shown output resolution of 640p. this is shown in the list of available resolutions on the rear cover of the American version of the game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefy comrad (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between output resolution and native resolution. I can make a movie that's 320x180 and play it on the PS3 and make the output resolution 1080p... Long story short, the native resolution of GTA4 on the PS3 is 640p. Cheers --Vylen (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is that the citation is quoting an article which is quoting a topic on a forum. Why is that being accepted as reliable? -- 12:30, 24 May 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.69.128 (talk)
It's a PC World news entry, I think that's reliable. It's not only quoting a forum article but says "several outlets have confirmed the PS3 version runs at 640p". That should be enough imho. --SoWhy Talk 12:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"several outlets have confirmed-" Outlets of what? Who are these outlets? Where are the sources to these outlets confirming this? -- 14:42, 28 May 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.120.246 (talk)
Satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Release date

Y Done
Do we really need the '29 days ago' added in there? Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. I've removed it. - X201 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Text

Can someone please change this to proper English

-- This then enables him to receive different sexual activities with the prostitute at different costs.[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.246.12 (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "He may then choose to participate in a variety of sexual activities with the prostitute, with each one costing a different amount of money"? IgorsBrain (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer on top of Gamerankings.com

Fell once again. Might go back up but with so many reivews it would be very hard. Either way, it is incorrect and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muisee (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be changed to "it was on top of Gamerankings.com from date x to date y", or "during x days on month y of 2008" --Enric Naval (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Song

What is the song in the commercials?Poketape 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, try somewhere else. --Svippong 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

He will not be the last, mabey it could be metioned somewhere......(121.217.56.178 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

Why be so rude, Svippong? It's "Pruit Igoe" by Philip Glass. Neıl 龱 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the peeow-peeow song? Boomchekuw boomche-PEEOW-PEEOW-boomcheekuw boomche-PEEOW-PEEOW. That's "Get Innocuous" by LCD Soundsystem. --nlitement [talk] 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"I came a long way to see you and now I wish you were dead" Google it for gods sake.(121.217.56.178 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Police response

Does anyone feel that the police are much more aggressive than in the previous GTAs? I haven't got too far through the game (first island as I've only had it a couple of days) so I can only get 4 stars. N.O.O.S.E. have assault rifles at 4 stars. Generally seem to be more patrol cars after you, police employ jeeps at three stars. Not to mention the assault chopper etc. Is this worth mentioning? TheTrojanHought (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Try to cross over the bridge by foot. Then they take you down at full star level. --Shorty23sin (talk) 02:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say no, because, it kind of varies throughout the star levels. For example it's much easier to stay alive at Level 6 as compared to San Andreas. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 02:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is not a froum.(121.217.56.178 (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC))