Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

GamesTM Article

Here's a link to the GamesTM article, incase anyone wants to verify my contribs http://www.destructoid.com/new-gta-iv-details-and-scans-34686.phtml Henrysugar 05:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rating

I've noticed that on the Amazon UK search results page for GTA 4, it says that the PEGI Rating is 18+, on the product pages it says the BBFC rating is 18. On each of the websites for these companies however they don't list the game details. This could mean that the ratings will be out soon, they've only released the ratings to retailers, or Amazon's making an assumption (I'm not sure if they're allowed to do that). As it's not on the official sites, I don't think it should be in the article yet, but hopefully the ratings will be released officially soon so they can be added. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably keep an eye out for it; I do feel that maybe Amazon got their info from a source, though. I don't think they just made a random assumption with no basis. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Does rating differ between country, by chance? I mean, I assume it's determined by the morality of each individual country. Assuming the ESRB isn't universal. >_> 12.107.246.51 03:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it probably is an assumption based on the previous games - as the BBFC etc can't really give a rating to a game that is still in the development stages. Yeanold Viskersenn 09:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on common sense, it will get an ESRB Rating of M for Mature, just like the last few. —cmsJustin <;;font size="1">(talk|contribs) 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Justin ^ but we can't change it in the article till we get it from the official source. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! Everyone knows it'll be an 18. III, VC and SA all were. Why would this be any different?

WP:OR John Hayestalk 11:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PC

Has anyone confirmed if they're going to release it on PC? Because I think that they will - but have they confirmed it? - User:Jbeckwith

Not yet. They have been no single confirmation from rockstar. --SkyWalker 07:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussing the subject not the article. Delete? John Hayes 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No, if someone has here information on the platforms then it will be added to the article. --14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but he was asking about the game itself, rather than asking about the article John Hayes 15:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets argue about whether or not this is an argument. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 ;-) John Hayes 16:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Any news on wether this will get a PC release? PMA 13:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No! As soon as someone finds out the article will be updated. ^_^ --70.142.42.81


Will it be out for PC also? I think it worth a mention, if not. Not to say if yes! :) - Bl


If it's not mentioned yet, I think it's worth mentioning that it most likely will come out on PC, but that R* hasn't officially announced it. Economically, it's a smart move, so it seems likely -- but until they say so it can't be cited and proved. At the least, a sentence mentioning something like "R* has not yet said if IV will be included on the PC or if it will remain console-exclusive," seems appropriate to me. 12.107.247.226 23:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, either way, it can't be mentioned until Rockstar announces it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can be positive it will come to PC in some capacity (legitimate or otherwise), usually a few months after console launch for exclusivity on launch and additional optimization for PC. PC players can be relied on to buy it when it comes out later as they're generally in for the long haul on a genre and aren't going to platform hop, whereas console players often jump to whatever is hot at the moment. That's simply modern video game marketing, no offense to anyone. DavimusK 04:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless or whether or not it's smart or inevitable (don't get me wrong; I do agree with both of you), we can't add it into the article yet until a source comes out. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It will come as we are planning to releas it in the first quarter of 2008. DESSISION MAY CHANGE. WE HAVE NOT YET STARTED.

Did you not read any of this. This requires a source. Any discussion of this at the moment is pointless John Hayes 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Size Matters

Does anyone know exactly how much smaller than San Andreas the map will be? 218.186.9.1 03:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the article, there hasn't been a source that details Liberty's size yet; we should wait 'till one comes out. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Liberty City's a lot bigger than you think according to [1]. I hope you can get some information from there to add to the article. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In the issue of Official Playstation UK Magazine in the exclusive feature they had their own map and it was a lot smaller than that. They said themselves that Rockstar are keeping the real map secret for now so the difference in size/detail wont be clear until more information comes out. So far they've said the map is smaller, but more densely packed with detail. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Has Rockstar or a reliable source specifically stated that Liberty City will be the only city playable in GTA IV? Or is Liberty City the only confirmed city? 218.186.9.1 11:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
They've specifically said there's only one city, it was their reason why there are no planes. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Although if the size of liberty city is going to be comparable to GTA:SA, and if it was fine flying planes in that, then perhaps the reason you can't fly planes has something to do with 9/11? ∆ Algonquin 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Possibly. It must have gone through their minds. The only thing they're saying publically is that it's it's one city so no planes are needed. In the UK Playstation magazine the interviewer hinted at saying it was something to do with 9/11, but nothing was answered with 9/11 as an excuse. So even though it may be a factor in the decision, until that information is published then the only reason that can be put in the article is they say one city doesn't need planes. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
People, don't tell any one but its map is bigger than San Andreas. This information should not spread! I work For Rockstar North. I am not debating my name and also don't let the wikipedians notice it. Thx.
You need to provide a source for this. If you are just "informing" us, then this is not the place for it, this is purely for discussing the article. John Hayes 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Visit our website after 1st August we will upload the bit information

web

found some interesting info here 218.186.9.1 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the latest information about GTA IV. A similar article can also be found here [2] about the limitations of the Xbox 360 and the PS3 -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So when is the next big bit of info due to come out? ∆ Algonquin 13:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No one is sure yet although quite soon I suppose considering the game is releasing in only a few months. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 14:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, on 16 may the Official Playstation magazine Austraila next issue is released, and they are advertising that they are going to fly to NYC for a world exclusive on gta4. i don't know if all mags are going to have this "world excusive". ∆ Algonquin 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The British one did John Hayes 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

apparently, according to previous infomation leaked onto forums in www.gta4.net, the size of the city isn't as big as the size of the San Andreas map, but is bigger in terms of scale, including verticality.

Governor General

Irrelevant sentence in opening?

This bit has been in the introductory section for a while now, and it still looks horribly awkward (in bold):

According to Janco Partners analyst Mike Mickey, a financial consultant for Take-Two Interactive Software, around 150 game developers are working on Grand Theft Auto IV. This is more than Grand Theft Auto: Vice City which debuted in 2002, and which had about 130 people listed in the credits (not including voice actors and motion-capture actors).

Is there any reason whatsoever that this sentence is still in the article? Correct me if it's already been discussed. Pele Merengue 09:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's true, and tells us that even more work went into GTAIV than VC? I have no idea. The phrasing used to be worse until someone changed it. --70.143.63.172 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone who is good at writing should re-word it. 218.186.9.1 12:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious that more work is going into IV than Vice City, though? And just because it's true, is it really an important bit of information? It's just such an awkward observation: "This game in the series has 150 people working on it, which is more than one of the games earlier in the series." It just doesn't need to be there. I'm taking it out for now, if anyone wants to put it back, please discuss it here.Pele Merengue 22:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be added; I'm practically parroting WP:OR when I say that. In the end, that's rather irrelevant info and needs to be removed if it hasn't been done so. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why was it there in the first place? I wasn't defending its inclusion, just trying to answer the guy's question. --70.143.63.172 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

the Simpsons parody

this seems relevant enough to be included in the article 218.186.9.1 12:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

And even a darts tournament is spoofing the GTA IV countdown. This all really needs to be included in the article. .:Alex:. 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What would the section be called? References in Popular Culture? -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 22:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. 218.186.9.1 09:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

References is what I say but thats just me. What about you guys?--Manny Ribera 15:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pop culture references" is fine. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 15:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats also a good one!--Manny Ribera 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A "pop culture references" is somewhat unnecessary anyway. These types of trivia sections grow to unnecessary sizes anyways. A discussion over this predicament can be found here, at the GTA Task Force talk page. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Glass

It has been confirmed in a recent interview with Dan Houser that Phillip Glass has been hired to work on some music for GTA IV. Should this info be included? .:Alex:. 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest Juicy Details

Here's the latest info for GTA IV: Source:http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=119646

  • It is possible to view the bus schedule at bus stops in the game. You will most likely be able to ride the bus around the city for a small fee. Check out these two bus stops seen in the trailer.
  • When the main character, Niko Bellic, pulls out a weapon in the game, the camera positions itself over the shoulder and a crosshair appears at the center of the screen. The translation claims that it is possible to remain locked on to a target and strafe left or right to avoid shots.
  • Niko, the main character, will not be able to get in a car and immediately start driving like in previous games in the series. You will have to perhaps "hot wire" the car. You might also have to sneak up to the car and break the window. These are sketchy details, though, so don't go around thinking this as complete factual information.
  • Niko can freely climb several things such as telephone poles and fire escapes. No word if you will be able to climb walls like in San Andreas, though.
  • If you were looking closely in the trailer, you could see down into the grating of a sidewalk panel. Light will shine down into these areas, and the subway or sewer is most likely below.
  • Though the translation for this next bullet point might have been bad, people are claiming that Philip Glass, the composer of the music heard in the first trailer, will be involved in the production of the game soundtrack.

Where should I put each sentence - which sections? -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the details themselves are sketchy, we may need to wait before adding this. This, of course, is merely my opinion. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As much as gamespy may be a valid source it bases the article on this site: http://www.gta-series.com/it/ Which looks to be a fan site rather than a site with a proper editorial process (though I may be wrong). If this is the case we can't use it. I agree with Klptyzm that we should wait, at least until we can source the Italian Offical Playstation Magazine itself. John Hayes 10:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Niko will be able to "throw people off buildings" acording to this 218.186.9.1 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Here is the info from the site so that people don't have to go to the site:
  • According to the magazine, GTA IV is currently 66% complete.
  • When Niko pulls out a pistol, a crosshair with a simple black cross within a circle shows up on the screen. This could be an indication of manual aiming being available in the game.
  • Rockstar's humorous take on the number 69 makes an appearance yet again in GTA IV, the editors of the magazine saw a sign for a "69th Street Diner". Another building called "Twitchins", the GTA version of Brooklyn's Domino's Sugar Factory, is in the game.
  • Niko will be able to climb and descend exterior fire escapes and some meetings will take place high in the office buildings of skyscrapers. It's said that from on top of them you'll be able to throw people off.
  • Hand to hand combat is also being reworked on for GTA IV, and will feel "much more natural" than before.
  • One of the radio stations includes an "Eastern European-sounding" dancing station.
  • Players will be able to change their camera views whilst in a car according to their needs. This however is said to still being experimented on, and that Rockstar want to give better control and "immediacy" to players.
  • For confirmation, boats will be making a return and the handling is "really nice".
  • When selecting your mobile phone, a zoomed-in version of the mobile screen pops up in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen, where you can use its address book to pitch for "jobs" with gang contacts among other things.
  • One of the things that makes it easier for Rockstar setting GTA in a fictional New York is that they sometimes get a call from the developers at Rockstar North in Scotland, wanting to know more about a specific building or traffic flow in a certain area, for instance, and using their in-house researchers in NYC they can easily assist the guys back at R* North.
  • Dan Houser is quoted saying that the Liberty City in GTA IV is bigger than any single city they've done before, giving a more clear indication of the physical size of the game.
  • He continues saying that the "detail" of the game is the big thing. He also confirms Central Park to be in the game, though it's fictional name is still unknown to us.
  • Dan says that they're "certainly evolving the way the radio works". He says the same for police behaviour and their reaction to crimes. Nothing further is said about this...
  • "Fun ridiculous" weapons is said to be in the game, because R* is not going too "naturalistic".

∆ Algonquin 12:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it's gonna be one HELL of a game!--Manny Ribera 14:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Refrain from forum like posts. Moving on, if this info is from a good source, maybe we can discuss adding it, in some form. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 15:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added the relevant ones and some further ones from the official Xbox magazine, and the official Playstation magazines from Italy and Australia. Yeanold Viskersenn 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have bought the British OPM, and it pretty much confirms all this John Hayes 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the police car change in GTA4. I've noticed that color went from black and white to blue and white in GTA4 should that also be mentioned?!--Manny Ribera 06:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? John Hayes 15:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's even newer details from Australia's Official OPM magazine:
  • The editors of the magazine saw pedestrians reading newspapers, people gesturing as they talked on public phones and people sitting and chatting at bus stops. Some of them even visibly flicked dust off of their trousers.
  • When pedestrians get too close to Niko (the main character), he "pushes them aside."
  • As a car passed by the main character, the controller vibrated to the bass emanating from inside.
  • You can be mugged by other criminals.
  • You can bribe characters.
  • Niko has the opportunity to deposit and withdraw money via an automatic teller machine (ATM).
  • In the demo presented to the editors, Niko entered an apartment, gun drawn. The apartment had multiple rooms including a loungeroom and kitchen. Niko exited through a back doorway/window into an alley where "piles of litter, weeds and homeless guys huddling around fires in barrels" were present.
  • In the demo, Niko was struck by a car. He realistically fell to the ground and then got back up.
  • We finally got an answer as to why a trailer for the game was released earlier than any other trailer for any other GTA game ever. Dan Houser, co-founder of Rockstar Games said that the company feels that they are showing stuff "earlier than [they] normally would do purely because [they] have got to get enough people excited enough to want to go out and buy the new consoles." Later, he says "we are trying to make things that will make a large number of people go out and buy the machines. We have to do that by showing stuff early because it's a big purchase to people."
  • Houser took a "shot" at the PlayStation 3 and Sony by saying "because of the games out there at the moment, I wouldn't go out and spend $600 on one of those machines yet. There's not enough interesting software unless you happen to really like having an expensive box that shows off graphics on some really uninspiring games." He didn't mention the PS3 by name.
  • Houser said that the goal for the game is to "create a game that feels like the ultimate gangster crime experience and on the other hand, it's to create a game that feels like the ultimate living in a modern city experience."
  • The eating and body-building features from San Andreas will not be in GTA IV because Rockstar "wanted to focus on physics more and they got kind of conflicting."
  • Elements of terrorism will be in the game, but there will not be a Ground Zero for the World Trade Center. I am in no way saying that you play a terrorist. If you are a politician or you work for one and you are reading this, you better not be an idiot.
  • Houser was asked about a possible PSP title called GTA: San Andreas Stories coming soon, but all Houser had to say was "no real plans at the moment" and that they are "doing some other things" with the handheld device...

don't think this has been mentioned yet, and its probably not a big enough detail to be included in the article? but in the second trailer, niko is seen riding a bike, my point is he has a helmet on his head. Obviously because bikes were banned in gta3 because of the deaths from them (so the story of goes). Anyway yeah Helmets! lol

Wow! So much information coming this month, eh? -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 17:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration is spelled wrong

...but I can't fix it. Under "Gameplay". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.44.19 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't understand why you couldn't change it - maybe your IP is blocked?, but thanks for bringing it up. I'll change it right away -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 17:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is semi-protected which is why this user could not change it. .:Alex:. 19:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"

After the "66% complete" part in the first paragraph, it says "citation needed". But it says: "According to Official Xbox Magazine magazine," before. Isn’t this a sufficient citation? Also, if bridges are going to limit Niko's access to other boroughs, then isn't that saying that Niko can't swim? ∆ Algonquin 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be enough, but the best kind of reference would be using the {{cite}} template, with Issue, publisher, date, author, article title, etc. all included. As for the swimming thing, I've not read anything that says he can't swim. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith and that that was about whether we should mention swimming in the article. As Bill says there is no source, but bridges limiting access doesn't stop the ability to swim, for example in San Andreas bridges limited access, but you could still swim John Hayes 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
yeah i realised that after posting the comment. and what was that about asuming good faith? what reason would you have for not asuming good faith? ∆ Algonquin 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I was assuming that you were acting in good faith, in that you had mentioned it so that it could be included in the article, rather than you were just talking about the game. If I had replied without that comment, it might have appeared that I was discussing the game, rather than the article, which isn't allowed. John Hayes 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hands

I don't think this is important enough to include by itself, but if something else comes up similar to this, it might be useful http://www.gamesradar.com/gb/xbox360/game/news/article.jsp?releaseId=20070514152652406085&articleId=20070514152652406085&sectionId=1006 John Hayes 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think it is somewhat important considering that previous GTA games have been critisised for featuring "stumpy" hands with grooves "painted" on them. Indeed, the graphics have significantly changed from the PS2 to PS3. Even the clothing looks like real fabrics now and are not painted jagged polygons. It could briefly be mentioned in the Trivia section though - something like:
'This is the first GTA game that features people having "real hands". Previous versions of the franchise were critisised for their "stumpy" and "claw-like" hand models.'
P.S. If you didn't know, the "real hand" image used in the link you gave me was taken from the following magazine image: http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7103/streetzg7.jpg

-- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think better hands are important enough to be mentioned by itself, but if a section on how the game has better graphics or better representations of people this could be a useful source. Also I thought generally on wikipedia we were trying to get rid of trivia sections? John Hayes 10:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Indicate source

Now that there is information from a few magazines in the article, I think it's important for each piece to have it's source indicated. My proposal is that this is done multiple times using the ref tags for each claim. E.g. <ref name=gameinformer/>, where the first reference has the {{cite}} template. Using this method will also make it easier to spot information that's been made up, original research, etc.. It's already like that for a couple of times the Official Playstation UK Magazine is cited so it just needs to be expanded. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I second this. The last thing we need is a clutter of unsourced BS. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Speculation always makes a mess of articles and especially the ones of games that have yet to be released. The easier we can all make this, the better. - .:Alex:. 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to get worried about this as I don't have access to all the magazine articles and new information is constantly being added. All the information is getting jumbled up and mixed together and I think it would be very easy to put false information into the article. I suggest that [citation needed] is put next to each claim of information and left for a certain amount of time. Then whenever somebody who has the magazine the information is from edits the page, they can cite the appropriate one using: <ref name=magazineName>{{cite | title=GTA IV preview in magazineName | date= | author= | publisher= }}<ref>. If the information is not cited with a certain period of time, it should be moved to the talk page where it can be re-entered if verified. What's the consensus about this move? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

gta4.net

I see that gta4.net has been added again, but with a reason this time (Added GTA4.net, because a lot of info are DIRECT copied and pasted information from the site, and also because so far it, along with GTAForums, have provided first-hand the information from magazines.), so I haven't removed it. He does have a point, but as gta4.net will never be a valid source, I can't see the value of including it John Hayes 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Valid reason sure, but it's the 2nd fansite now on there (PlanetGTA is a pure fan site being passed off as a "GameSpy" page). Nothing against these or indeed any other gta fan sites, but it does go against wikipedia guidelines doesn't it? Rarely are fan sites a direct source if information. Most of the info currently being passed around is quotes from magazines - so I agree there's fairly little value in including any fan site in the external links section. ChrisJP 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GTA4.net is the prime GTA IV fan site, along with PlanetGTA, constantly in close collaboration with Rockstar Games PR in New York City. These two fan sites are prime resources, bringing this information to the web, and are two great links given to users to stay up to date with the game, along with Wikipedia. Fan sites are listed all over videogame pages on Wikipedia, especially when they are a great asset to Wikipedia itself. This is not about getting "linkage", we already have a large user base, just check our Alexa ranking. Hits from Wikipedia would be a small amount, if any, to these sites.

I also have to say that the comment above from Chris is a Webmaster of another fan site, who's criticized these fan sites in the past, so some sort of "rivalry" are likely taking place here.

All sources must be compared against the criteria for a reliable source. The reliable sources guideline says:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

I dont know about planetGTA as I don't visit that site very much, but GTA4.net seems to be a reliable source of news for GTA IV. Of course how you regard authors of the information is subjective. This is very much open for debate, but I'm not sure it's that important at the moment because the websites are getting their information from the magazine articles, why not cite the magazines as a source instead? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes that was mainly my point - cite the primary source (magazine) not the secondary (fan site). The problem is that the magazines are in print, not on the web (usually), so in this case, citing a fan site is really the only thing we can cite, other than not citing at all. Also, I never said gta4.net or planetgta weren't reliable, they are very reliable, as are the majority of fan sites most of the time. I also never said anything anwhere about "linkage". The fact I am also a webmaster of a popular website has nothing to do with this discussion. My website is linked on numerous wikipedia articles too - there is no rivalrly here, I was simply stating my opinions on this evidently highly debated matter. To reiterate, I have no problem with gta4.net or any other fan site being linked, just whether it is actually necessary and just, was my point. ChrisJP 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources aren't limited to what's on the web. You can cite journals, magazines, all sorts as long as they're reliable and verifiable. As the magazine is the source of the article, the websites can be bypassed completely in this case. See WP:CITET for methods of citing a variety of types of sources. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes we should not be citing the fansites anywhere. I'm still doubtful about whether they should remain. I agree they are useful, but they aren't encylopeadic. John Hayes 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And it's been added again, I'll remove it, but ask him to add to this discussion. John Hayes 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New image

Y Done

A new image has been added to article, of the train on the tracks. It looks to me like this doesn't meet the fair use policy. remove? John Hayes 14:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The image should not be removed because it is simply an example of gameplay and graphics in the game.  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The image shouldn't be removed, but a new one with a lower resolution should be uploaded in it's place with a fair use rationale. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Image should not be removed. And in my opinion, it is already a low resolution image. ChrisJP 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming that this picture's just copied from the NYT website as it's exactly the same size and has the same compression. The Fair Use rationale guideline says that the image should be a reduced resolution copy of the original. At the moment it's an exact copy of the image used on the NYT webpage. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would imagine it has already been resized from a high definition (1280x720) original image output from the game, can't be certain though. ChrisJP 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
But it hasn't been resized from the NYT source image, that's the one that matters. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well at least the copyright info has been added, which was my main concern, though I agree with Bill, it should be reuploaded as a lower res image John Hayes 11:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
How much lower exactly, what resolution? ChrisJP 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say 60 to 70% of the original would be a reasonable size. The idea is to make sure the reader doesn't have a reason not to go to the source to view the image. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To those who said the image is the exact same size and exact same compression, please check before you make such false statements. The image I uploaded is a different file size, and is actually not the same image size than the one seen on NY Times. AdriaanGTAP

The image is the same, it's had a border removed which accounts for the slight difference. If you compare the 2 there are no visible differences. The image uploaded here is the same as the image from the GTA4.net website as it has the same MD5 hash, that image has been reduced by a few pixels and then resaved. 4pixels is not enough difference from the original and it should be resized. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is crazy, you are talking about removing an image because it is too good! 218.186.9.1 12:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
No no, certainly not removed. It just needs to be resized with a fair use rationale added. The other image needs the same actually. It's Wikipedia policy. It'll still look the same in the article in the end. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My use of remove might have been taken in the wrong context, I meant this version of the image, rather than the image itself. Sorry for the confusion John Hayes 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and replaced the images with lower resolution ones and I've added fair use rationale's for each per Wikipedia policy. There's no noticable difference on the article page. The image pages link to locations where the full size images can be seen. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Characters from GTA III

Many of the characters will not make the returning (although it is unknown is Claude Speed or Toni Cipriani will make a cameo appearance). As for Donald Love, he'll make an appearance in order to design the new Liberty Tree. Professional Gamer 14:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Joey Leone? The mob families are shown to return in the magazine, With new Mafia families! So far only the Russian Mafia has been confirmed!--Manny Ribera 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Mafia has been confirmed - "The Mafia will put in an appearance around Liberty City, but they won't be assigned leading roles" [3] -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Read the top Manny. "This is not a forum for general discussion of plots, platform releases, characters, locations or anything that cannot be verified."John Hayes 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your source Professional Gamer? John Hayes 09:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I don't have much of the source, I do know that few of the characters from the 2001 game Grand Theft Auto III, especially Donald Love, since he made the Liberty Tree. It's important that Donald Love must make the new Liberty Tree from Grand Theft Auto IV. As for Claude Speed, he may or may not be featured in this city, since he is still silent. Professional Gamer 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it totally impossible that someone else can make it? If you didn't get this info from a source, then it's very possible a totally new character could make the Liberty Tree. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said Donald will be gone Klyptzm?!--Manny Ribera 14:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Who said he would be there??? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No one but who said he whould not??? I think we should just wait and see.--Manny Ribera 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Manny, the point he is trying to make is that without a source this is speculation, and this talk page isn't the place to speculate what is or isn't going to be in the game. This page (as it says at the top) is for discussing the article. If someone has a source which says Donald Love is or isn't in the game then it is worth discussing. Otherwise this topic should not continue. John Hayes 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Donald Love didn't make the Liberty Tree, and there wasn't ever a real source that he acquired it in the first place (although it was suggested). He isn't needed for the paper to exist in the game. Donal Love vanished without a trace in GTA III....and more then likely he'll stay that way. 71.75.109.20 05:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What did I just say above about not discussing this without a source? John Hayes 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Niko Bellic Magazine Image

Hi. I had this image of a magazine page on my computer saved from some GTA IV site two weeks ago. I reinstalled Windows on my computer a few days ago, so I don't have the history link of the source. Because of this, I don't know what liscense applies to the image although I believe the image should be added to article because like the other images on this article, this one also would provide more detail, represents an example of the game's appearance and accompanies other information in the article.

Image Link: http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7103/streetzg7.jpg

The one thing that is certain that this image is taken from an Xbox 360 debug unit, but are not representative of the final quality of the graphics. In the coming months, the game will only look better.

-- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have that image in one of my many magazine articles that i have saved over the last couple of months, i can scan it on if that would help at all. ∆ Algonquin 16:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Special Edition

Probably should mention something on this: [4] John Hayes 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And I should probably read the article first ;) John Hayes 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha! I already wrote about the Special Edition on the article before you posted this section on the discussion page. Think before you leap next time. :P -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 22:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
He just said that... -_- --64.149.36.171 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
... John Hayes 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GTAIV image

Is the new gta4 image the new official one? ∆ Algonquin 09:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is the new official GTA IV logo that features the "IV" bigger than previous logo images. Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 18:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Looks slightly strange but oh well. I might resize it as it's quite big and it has come out a bit strange. - .:Alex:. 11:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

"The map is smaller than Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, but more detailed, and will in fact be larger than any previous individual cities in the GTA series" So, if it's smaller than SA, how can it be larger than any of the previous ones? McKay 16:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed that sentence. It was actually referring to the city size but failed to mention it after talking about the map size. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

San Andreas is a state. It said individual cities. 12.107.246.180 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

SA was made up of three individual cities and a lot of country and mountains in between. JayKeaton 16:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Should there not be a separate section for the characters revealed so far and for any future ones? I mean it seems like a while but October is only 4 months away so the reveals are gonna come fairly fast soon and we already have some details on Roman and Niko.Darkwarriorblake 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already? 12.107.246.208 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
If you mean something as such: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas#Characters, then I think it's worth starting a new section. Similarly, the section could possibly have a link to its main article, List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV. -- Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove those citation notes

Just read the fucking magazines, seriously. It seems that some people just come in randomly busting citation notes onto a random article if they don't see every sentence or word cited. --88.193.241.224 00:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are there because the magazines aren't available in all regions and the game's not out for people to verify the information themselves. At this point any information could be slipped into the article and it's not easy to spot. If each piece of information is sourced then it will be easier to spot false information. Just because you missed the point you shouldn't post here assuming bad faith and attacking editors. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't need to be available to you for you to see them. There are scans upon scans of these magazines, with which no-one would waste their time photoshopping just to fool you or anyone else. Though, if you ask me, the information could be worded a bit differently so that it flows better as opposed to being a dozen sentences on random features of the game. I know it's all very sketchy at this point in time, but still, we could try to make it look nicer, yeah? 12.107.246.208 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

added release date confusion

the oct 16 launch date could get delayed manchurian candidate 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this again for various reasons. Firstly it doesn't say that, it says that the standard edition may be delayed, but the special edition will come out on the 16th October, so the release date hasn't changed. Secondly while the article is from a usually reliable source, the source that is based on is a forum post by an analyst unrelated to Rockstar. If you want to have a section based on that source you would have to rewrite to say that an analyst has suggested that the standard edition may be delayed by two weeks. I'm not sure whether this is relevant enough to the article. I leave it up to you to come up with something better. John Hayes 09:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Somewhat release date related: The article mentions the analysts prediction that Take2 may delay GTAIV due to Halo 3, however here is an article where Rockstar still say IV is on track for release in October as originally announced. Perhaps this should be added after the part mentioning the possible delay re Halo 3. Link: http://games.kikizo.com/news/200706/004.asp 203.211.120.4 11:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Rockstar's response using information in that link. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 12:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo

http://files.gtanet.com/images/3371_grand_theft_auto_iv_white_logo.jpg

Here's a cleaner version that fits the white background. --88.193.241.224 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Details

A recent interview with a rockstar employee has revealed that niko belic will not be the only playable character. There will be four playable characters, some working with niko and others against him. Interview —Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloMyNameIsn'tCharlie (talk • contribs)

Your link to the interview is broken... -- Longhair\talk 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have heard about the multiple character thing somewhere, though when i searched "www.rockstargamesinfo.com" it seems that that website doesn't exist... strange.∆ Algonquin 14:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it's not wkring for me either :S Bhavesh.Chauhan Message Me | Contribs 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant Details/Observations; External Link Suggestion

One of the most detailed sources of San Andreas *first-hand*/semi-official reports recently started its 'Coverage Center' for GTA IV, with a lot of impressions, R* interview quotes and exclusive tidbits of information that should urgently be filtered into the Article. Since this source was so reliable and detailed for GTA SA and has also set up gta4.kikizo.com as a GTA IV hub, and as it promises "detailed, accurate impressions and information direct from our regular private viewings at Rockstar Games HQ" it should probably be added as a External Link; its first preview that went live at the same time as IGN's, GameSpot's, CVG's, GamesRadar's (the only other privileged sites to even see the first Broker/Algonquin demo at Rockstar) was significantly more detailed and was praised on influential forums like NeoGaf and GtaForums... the site has even since removed an image (depicting Bellic's changes of clothing for the first time) at the request of Rockstar showing that it's important to see this site's reports quickly in case of useful info leaks. I will now summarise some of the details for consideration to go into the Wikipedia GTA IV article, in the first major preview from the site (url: http://games.kikizo.com/news/200705/101_p1.asp):

  • GTA: Europe rumor - there was a credible 2004 report in MCV (UK trade magazine) that GTA IV would be set in Europe and Rockstar has commented on this for the first time and confired it as incorrect: "As soon as we finished San Andreas, we knew where it was going to be." [all quotes that are not kikizo's are from their Rockstar PR rep as quoted].
  • Mission/story link and progression - "what I can say is that, for the first time, we're really trying to blur the line between on-[mission] and off-mission. So storyline, and what you do outside, and how those two things influence each other. Obviously the storyline is more complex than before; you're going to be able to engage and embark on relationships with other people to an extent that you haven't been able to do before, to a point that hopefully it will evoke emotion within the person playing the game as well."
  • Observations on the sound engine - Cars driving past really sound - and feel - like they're going past you, as the engine rumbles and the car's blaring music fades in and out... The varying volume and intensity of car horns and the constant hum of traffic noise is transfixing to listen to, and the frequent deafening rattle of trains hurtling through the subway honestly make this city sound as real as the ones we live and breathe in - it's something we don't think has been emphasised enough in any previous coverage of this new title... it sounds as dynamic and three-dimensional as it looks. The idea of going anywhere and doing anything, has never been as tantalising.
  • Extent of loadtime-free play - there are no load times, period, according to Brown. "You can basically play the game from beginning to end without a single load screen," he explains. And it won't be affected by your choice of console between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, either: "They will both be the same," says Brown
  • Platform disparity - "We're still trying to solve all the riddles on both platforms; there is no target console... obviously it was in development a little bit longer on Xbox 360, just because people had access to the tools earlier, hence the PS3 [version currently] being slightly behind, but we'll probably be catching up in about a month on that."
  • Traffic - in general, the variety in traffic on the road - vehicle type and style - is such that you can see a whole lot more than just the basic make and colour of each car, like you put up with from a last-gen GTA. Traffic looks pretty much like it does in a real city.
  • First confirmed track, placeholder TBC - A great piece of funky jazz music (Fela Kuti - Sorrow Tears & Blood) plays on the bassy car stereo too and really adds to the vibe.
  • Music in final game - "I think it'll be a huge and broad spectrum of music that will cover decades; just because it's set now, doesn't mean that the music has to be in 2006 and 2007; I'm sure it will be far-reaching in terms of decades, and genres."
  • Staten Island absence - "The only thing we're not doing is Staten Island, just because it was too similar to some of the other areas, so it didn't really bring anything to the mix that was new and fresh."

The site also has a rough schedule of what its first-hand coverage will entail:

Schedule of GTA IV coverage - subject to change:

  • Announcement & HD Trailer (March 29)
  • Preview 1: Welcome to GTA IV (May 25)
  • Preview 2: Gameplay, PS3 Version & More (June TBC)
  • Preview 3: Online/MP modes - (August TBC)
  • Preview 4 & Beyond: Details and further preview timing TBC

Gamefan inform 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What Ive noticed, is that since grand theft auto: vice city, vice city stories, liberty city stories, are in the same series, then shouldn't this be grand theft auto VII?

The official title is "Grand Theft Auto IV." ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Grand Theft Auto IV is the beginning of a whole new arc in the series. Every other follow-up will have a subtitle. It's the same thing that happened with Grand Theft Auto III. The follow-ups were GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, etc. etc. - Throw 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To say that the edit made by me (as a devoted series follower) is linkspam is a nonsense; all details appear to be new, verifiable and significant to this article. Furthermore I brought this up in discussion a week ago and nobody objected -- please explain how the multiple references from this "Kikizo" article are inappropriate for inclusion -- these additions were made appropriately and concisely. Otherwise I suggest they should be reintroduced. You have also reversed corrections that I made to other parts of the article, for example reference on one of the picture captions which is not the proper source, and also proper categorization. The Gameplay segment is currently an effective verbatim reproduction of the tiny demo all the media has seen and nothing more, which is embarrasing and in no way an encyclopedic documentation of known GTA IV information (the final product) itself and I sought to readdress this. Please advise. Gamefan inform 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit - somebody beat me to it! Seems BillPP agrees with the above. Gamefan inform 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to reply here but got an edit conflict. I reverted the "linkspam" revert because all your edits seem fine and constructive to me. Kikizo appears to be a reliable source and I didn't immediately see any reason to think otherwise (e.g. fan submitted content). ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 03:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Episodic content confirmed exclusive for 360

There has been speculation as to whether or not gta IV will have exclusive content for the 360 as well as a seperate set of exclusive content for the PS3, but it has been confirmed now that the 360 will be exclusively getting all the episodic content, the PS3 gets none. Press release here http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=77863

Yep, additional info available here: http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=120404 Bhavesh.Chauhan 17:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned somewhere that Microsoft paid $50 million to secure the episodic content. Pele Merengue 10:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a Collectors Edition for PS3,but there isn't one for Xbox.Usually Collectors mean... fill in the Blanks. I never trust gamespy

they make good online games sucky with lag.--Hitamaru 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No HUD or stats on screen during play, acording to turkish mag

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/1379.html ∆ Algonquin 08:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting news. Do you happen to know which Turkish magazine the information's from? Personally I'm not comfortable using a PlayStation website citing an unnamed Xbox magazine as a source, especially as they're confused by the map size/landmass comment from Rockstar and think it's a contradiction. Incidentally, recently I was told a good way to explain the map size thing to those who're having trouble with it. Think of a pool with 3 inflatable donuts in it, That's San Andreas with its 3 cities. GTA IV is a slightly smaller pool, but it has 1 donut bigger than all three put together. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there was no HUD because it is a DEMO of the game? - .:Alex:. 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the link is broken now, but here is an even better link with more info that works: http://gamers-creed.com/?p=70. As for it being a demo of the game, I interpreted the article to mean that Rockstar had intended to make the game more realistic by removing the HUD. ∆ Algonquin 10:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there is no such magazine in Turkey and that they don't even sell the Xbox in that country. I also don't trust the contradictions of the article (it says that there are no girlfriends when this has been confirmed). I'll check it out myself though. Please don't add any of this info until we have some real proof (ie. scans). - .:Alex:. 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is true. There is no such magazine in Turkey. Like many other Eastern European countries, consoles just do not sell there, it is not worth anyone's time to produce a magazine for console games. Dozens of gaming sites posted this as fact, confusing thousands of people, this was despite the fact none of them had read or seen scans of the magazine - because of course, the mag is non-existent. And all this stemmed from a GameFAQs poster, who it turned out was known for previous hoaxes. IMO it was poor journalism from the gaming sites who did post, I feel they could have tagged the post as rumour at least. --ChrisJP 15:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Niko Bellic's Voice Actor

Has no information been released about who's voicing the main character yet? Or any of the people working for R* on the game, apart from the obvious people? 12.107.246.101 07:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not yet. It's all been quite hush hush. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Schwengler is the young and relatively unknown actor who is voicing a Russian character from the game. I suspect that, like SA, Rockstar will be using unknown voice actors from the region the character is from, like Russian actors. JayKeaton 23:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New GTA IV site on Yahoo.com

Just a heads up!

http://grandtheftauto.yahoo.com/

Yahoo have announced that they will open a new GTA IV website on towards the release of the second trailer. They will feature exclusive content and sneak previews as well. - .:Alex:. 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I also noticed on that page that the Xbox 360 Link (http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamemain?cid=1951332566&tab=&page=0&eid=-1) and the PS3 Link (http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamemain?cid=1951332567&tab=&page=0&eid=-1) feature the cover art (old GTA IV logo on black background) but they seem to be just placeholders so I doubt there's a need to change the image in the infobox for the article. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I recieved an email yesterday from Rockstar Games that contained the new GTA IV logo that is currently used on this page, so yes it probably is just a placeholder. - .:Alex:. 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com

How reliable is http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/? Are the contributers professional journalists or volunteer fans of the game? If it's not professional, is it still a good source to use for this article? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, man, it's just a blog linking to news, not some dude claiming to know things about the game. And Jordan (the site's "manager", so to say) is an IGN employee (GameSpy's a subsidiary of IGN). So, heh, we might say he's a journalist. :) --nlitement [talk] 18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the reason I asked is because somebody's cited a news item for analysis of why yahoo's hosting the next trailer. I wanted to know if this was the official reason or just opinion, and if it is just opinion, is it professional opinion. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 19:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In case this helps.. When I heard that Yahoo also was releasing the trailer I immediately thought it was most likely because there wouldn't be another crash. After I saw Jordan on the GameSpy site also beleive it was so there were no server crashes I thought that it would be worth adding that information to the article. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
So it's really just speculation about the reason? As other reasons like part of an advertising deal, or any kind of deal could be the reason why Yahoo's hosting it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, unfortunately, I agree with you. I didn't think it was notable enough to bring up here, but yes, it's simply speculation. --nlitement [talk] 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GTA IV fans angry at Yahoo!

Hi, recently I was browsing through some GTA forums and hundreds of users are angry towards Yahoo not posting the exclusive content as they promised to do on the 25th of May. As a result, many people have decided to create new accounts on Yahoo to spam on their message boards: http://messages.yahoo.com/Games/Computer_%26_Video_Games/forumview?bn=4781811

I feel like it's worthy to be added to the article.


Obviously this was a misconception by the fans - they mistook "coverage" as "exclusive content". Yahoo were meant to provide COVERAGE from the 25th. "Special content including an interview with the creators ... and exclusive screenshots" is throughtout this week. Yahoo never specifically stated which date they were providing these things though. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 01:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OR from you there, is it notable, and do you have a source? John Hayestalk 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you need a source for "angry fans" or the "misconception"? -Bhavesh.Chauhan 01:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
We need a source for the whole thing. You said you were browsing the GTA forums. That is WP:OR. You need to at least provide an article from a reliable source stating that this happened. Either way, it's not really important to an article on GTA, far more so on an article about Yahoo. John Hayestalk 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares that some fans are dumb.Chris Nelson 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

cooperative multiplayer?

In the last sentence of the mulitplayer paragraph, it is stated that coop is confirmed to be one of the mulitplayer modes. I can prove that, so far, Rockstar Games has not released any other information on multiplayer other that the fact that it will not be an MMO. The last sentence should be deleted or cited.

Second Trailer

As the second trailer is out I removed a lot of the info about who was going to release it where, as this was no longer important, along with the info about Yahoo, as this isn't really relevant to this section. John Hayestalk 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Stuff in this trailer you may have missed (someone add to article please):

  • A new incarnation of the Stallion, a car seen in previous GTAs is shown a lot in this trailer. The name is on the back of the car.
  • When Bellic is backed against a wall covered in graffiti (someone says something like "don't do anything stupid, cousin") one of the graffiti images is El Burro, from GTA III. Perhaps this new Liberty City will have some returning characters?
  • An Apache-style helicopter, similar to those in GTA:VC and GTA:SA, is seen briefly.
  • When the blonde woman says "Please, no more killing" a sign behind her says "Dare you enter THE CORPSE RIDE". There is also a ferris wheel behind her called the Liberty Eye.
  • Bellic is seen firing a AK47-style gun.

That's all for now, I'll add more if I see more. simon rjh (talk to me on halo wikia [5] 19:19 GMT 28 June 2007


Rockstar included a press release in the trailer's press kit that confirmed euphoria is indeed used, see GTA4.net. --88.72.33.134 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

details?

Do we have any information about whether buildings will be able to be damaged? Also, why is there no function for flying planes? it this diue to sensitivity issuses surrounding NYC and 9/11?

Possibly the 9/11 thing, otherwise just not needing/wanting them. Though I do have to say, playing with a Hydra between those skyscrapers would be very fun. mattbuck 19:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No planes because only 1 city will be gta iv's setting. the twin towers won't exist in the new game.

Euphoria confirmed

A press release confirms that the game uses Euphoria, though I believe it was already mentioned prior to the trailer. I don't have an account so I can't edit anything myself.

http://www.gta4.net/news/3897/grand-theft-auto-iv-trailer-2-launched/

Drivel

I call 'Drivel' on most of this article. Some examples...

"The camera angle behind the car is closer to the vehicle than in previous GTA titles, which enables more detail on the car to be seen."

"there will be several animation variations to sneaking up to a car and breaking it. The way Niko enters the car would look different each time depending where and how he is in relation to the car"

"The trailer ends with the "IV" and fades out to the Rockstar logo."

It just smacks of 'Speakign for the sake of speaking'. In reality, we know almost nothing about this game, but it's been padded out to an article that's HUUUUGE! Worst example of wikigroaning for a while.

Oh, and there's a lot of speculation being banded around as fact. Such as "A screenshot demonstrating the new weapon physics in the second trailer." We dont KNOW that it's not simply from a cut scene. And what the hell are 'Weapon physics' anyway? And in what way are they new from the previous game? More Drivel.

Chicknstu 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with an article being comprehensive. 203.129.45.207 11:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
But we also have to avoid unimportant trivia. John Hayestalk 11:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
it's a fine line between comprehensive and useless 'wikinoise'81.139.133.123 12:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The first two are significant changes from the GTA3 series. --nlitement [talk] 03:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with nlitement, perhaps the first one might not be as important, but the second about the "sneaking to the car" is a lot more significant since it shows how the game uses Euphoria to create uniqueness and randomness each time. NaturalMotion is a fairly new technology being adapted into next-gen games so it should definitely remain there. Bhavesh.Chauhan 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're being unnecessarily rude just to be unnecessarily rude. As it is, I think almost all of the information you included as "drivel" is in fact quite useful, but could be worded in a different way ( e.g., putting it in a sentence rather than as a bullet-mark of information of nowhere ) so that it looks a bit nicer. 12.107.247.46 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Explain how the last one, a description of the trailer, which is freely and easily available available online, will be useful to anyone? I cant imagine in the future, anyone would end up on this page because they want to know how the trailer ends. "Oh, so it fades out, then the Rockstar logo fades on. Sorted, that's all I needed to know...."82.41.91.27 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
One word: dialup. mattbuck 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Brin gme the man who thinks "Oh, I cant download the trailer for GTA4 at home, or see it anywhere else. I know, I'll go on wikipedia and read an in-depth description of it..", and I'll bring you a pig that can fly.82.41.91.27 09:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes i go to wikipedia and read the plot summary of movies i can't be bothered to watch
Yes, perhaps this is a bit akward to say but GTA IV isn't a movie. Anyway, I agree with [User:82.41.91.27|82.41.91.27]], the fade out sentence should be removed. - Bhavesh.Chauhan 06:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree if the trailer was notable enough, it would have it's own article, and this info could (and should) go in there. As this article is about the game, there is no need to mention this info, as it has no relevance to the game. John Hayestalk 12:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It ads to the flow of the article, when you read through the article and you haven't seen the trailer it sets the scene. Although the trailer info will prob be deleted by the time the game comes out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.59.233 (talk) 08:21, 4 July, 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

I've noticed there were typos in the first sentence of this GTA 4 article. Please delete this when the error is resolved. :) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.185.39 (talk) 22:49, 30 June, 2007 (UTC)

Which ones, and no need to delete, archive when done. John Hayestalk 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"instalment" should be spelled as installment, with 2 l's

The article is written in British English. --AxG @ ►talk 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Either spelling is acceptable, but it is a wikipedia policy to stick to a consistent form of English. John Hayestalk 22:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but, while I spell with American-English, I think the article should probably stick to the original British version, since I think the Rockstar variant producing it is an English company. I dunno. 12.107.247.237 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the article is majority British english, then it should be that way. If a majority can't be determined, then the article should be written in whichever English is used first, for teh sake of consistency. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a case, from the subject matter, for it being en_US, or en_GB, it is produced in both countries, by British staff headquartered in the US. As Klyptyzm suggests it should use whatever the majority of the article is written in (or default to the original), and I would suggest the majority is in en_GB. John Hayestalk 07:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The games title

Is it anywhere noted,why is the game called GTA IV,since the actual fourth installment of the series is Vice City,and GTA IV is the sixth installment?

If you are refering to the article, no it doesn't mention it. If you are just asking, this isn't a forum, so while I know the answer, I won't discuss it here. John Hayestalk 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And it's actually the eleventh, not the sixth game in the series, see the first line of the article. John Hayestalk 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Most people seem to say it's because GTA 3 was like a title. Then the subtitles were VC and SA. So now GTA IV will be like a new chapter in the series. I dunno, something to that extent, I can't think of how to explain it. 12.107.246.182 00:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple. 4th Generation of the game, GTA 1 series, GTA 2 series, GTA 3 series, now GTA 4. John Hayestalk 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to write why is it called GTA IV in the article then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.146.123 (talk) 12:19, 5 July, 2007

Probably yes. I'll do that. John Hayestalk 13:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone who knows GTA is smart enough to figure out why it's GTA IV.. maybe because the GTA 3 series ended? YES! --nlitement [talk] 14:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
We aren't writing for people who know GTA though, we have to assume the reader knows nothing about the subject matter. John Hayestalk 14:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Trailer footage

I noticed in the section for the first trailer, the last line reads: "Rockstar has stated that all the trailer's footage is in high-definition 720p, generated real-time by the game's RAGE engine, running on an Xbox 360."

I looked at the cited source and it didn't say which console, in fact it said they don't know which console it was from. Quoted from the cited aricle: "When we asked Rockstar Games for a clarification, a spokesman told TeamXbox: "We would like to let the trailer speak for itself. However, we can confirm that all footage in the trailer "Things Will Be Different" was captured directly from 720p gameplay running real-time in our RAGE engine on a next-gen gaming console." "

So unless I'm missing something, perhaps this should be changed back to "a next-gen gaming console". 203.211.121.36 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

They have an Xbox 720 or a PS4 running the game.. I mean, a next-gen console?! Silly "next-gen" marketing speech. :( --nlitement [talk] 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha yeah, I see what you mean, they should stop referring to Xbox360/Ps3/Wii as next-gen. Still doesn't help the article though... can anyone change this or point out where it says the footage is from Xbox 360? Thanks.202.74.204.223 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. --nlitement [talk] 15:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It says 360 again, even though the cited source still doesn't have more specific information on which system it runs on. Someone obviously has an interest in misrepresenting his guess as being a fact. 217.235.107.186 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have changed it to seventh gen console. John Hayestalk 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been changed back, and sourced this time, but with a youtube source. I reverted this, but then re-reverted back, as while we shouldn't use youtube sources, I think in this case it might be acceptable, we just need to find another source to back it up. John Hayestalk 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the other reference relevant any longer, now we know it's Xbox360 do we need the link to the site that says "it's running on a console but we don't know which one" anymore? I mean is this one still neccessary: http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/13134/And-Grand-Theft-Auto-IV-Takes-Place-In-UPDATE-/203.211.122.16 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening

Isn't the opening of the article a bit too long? A lot of it is related to development of the game so could it perhaps be moved to a new section near the top called Development or something, as it's a bit hard to read if you know what I mean. - .:Alex:. 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. John Hayestalk 21:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

New information

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=285871&st=0

Cite the mag issue then, not the thread or the scans. --nlitement [talk] 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a summarised version of all the new details:
http://planetgrandtheftauto.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=124061
We now know that the character most people assumed was Jacob Spliff is actually Little Jacob now. There is also another character called McReary. I'll add this information shortly to the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV article. -Bhavesh.Chauhan 16:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Teaser site with a twist

There is a new teaser site for one of the talk radio stations in the game, WKTT Radio, which seems to be a right-wing station. However, a number is given on the site and Rockstar wants people to call in and talk about what is wrong with Liberty City, Liberals, America, etc, and if it's good enough, they will use it in the game on the station.

http://www.wkttradio.com/

It should be mentioned somewhere in the article but I'm not sure where. 69.121.66.69 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah man, I see someone has added it already. Didn't realize it. 69.121.66.69 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

R* Bag

Does anyone know why it says in tiny letters "MCMXCVIII" on the rockstar bag? is this a brand or is it roman numerals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.59.115 (talk • contribs)

Well, this page is meant for article-editing discussion, but MCMXCVIII = 1998. Carson 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's not a brand. They're simple Roman numerals...ridiculous. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright then you pos, why would that be on the bag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.48.137 (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2007
Perhaps because that's when GTA was released, wiseguy? --nlitement [talk] 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'd chill with the little insults, too. I haven't warned you because I don't like wasting my time with people who act like children. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, i wouldn't want to waste your precious time, genuine wikipedia comments and questions won't delete themeselves. Do you have a life outside wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.55.83 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2007
Three things, remain civil towards other users, comment on content, not the users. Secondly please sign your talk page comments, just use the sign link, or type ~~~~. Finally talk page comments should be deleted if they are discussing the subject rather than the article. In your case you asked "Does anyone know why it says in tiny letters "MCMXCVIII" on the rockstar bag". This is discussing the subject rather than the article. This is why Klptyzm rightly deleted it. This page is not a forum. Thanks. John Hayestalk 09:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

R* children

in the second trailer the are two children/teenagers beating each other up and i thought it was worth mentioning as the have never been children in gta games before for obvious reasons

No. --nlitement [talk] 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Those weren't kids. They were just regular people.--Swellman 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a baby in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories, even though it did nothing but be a prop for the mother to hold. Mister macphisto 07:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wii Version

I removed the sentence claiming rumors about a Wii version, because the article that was cited on that claim makes no mention of the wii whatsoever. Yankeefan1087 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)yankeefan1087

Because that cite was the source for the previous sentence, someone must have added in the Wii specualation later. In removing that you removed the cite for 6 other locations as well, so I added it again. John Hayestalk 09:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

gta iv development is now at 92,

the gta iv is now at 92, and cumin to all b the wii the ps3 gta iv will h dc in 2008 said some man at e3 ?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sky the sky the sky (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 July, 2007 (UTC)

Dat iz gr8 m8. Lt uz no wen it iz at 93 and cumin to all inkludn da wii.Darkwarriorblake 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source? - Bhavesh.Chauhan 00:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I edited two of the above comments to be more readable, I didn't change any content whatsoever.) And, without a source like Bhavesh asked for, you can't add anything like that to the article. You can't even think it. Stop. 12.107.246.126 10:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You should never change the spelling of talk page comments, so I have reverted that, in fact Darkwarriorblake was making fun of the spelling, so your change would have entirely lost the context. John Hayestalk 11:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

yes rockstar north my bro w at rockstar north —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.116.150 (talk) 14:54, 18 July, 2007 (UTC)

Please direct this discussion to something important. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was wondering whether this could be deleted under WP:FORUM but I decided to leave it in case a source does appear. John Hayestalk 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I realized both of those things, but I think mocking someone who's in the darker shade of the grammatical spectrum is an unnecessary immaturity to begin with. Also, what source appears for random claims like this? That "someone at E3 said it"? That's not a source, that's a claim that would need to be uh, verified. If he provides an actual legal source ( as per preference ) then we could validate . . . any of this. 12.107.247.87 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I sgree. And yes the whole thing is speculation, so the whole section could, and should be deleted. John Hayestalk 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

how will the article change on the release date?

Since the game is going to be coming in a mere 89 days. I was wondering how the whole article is going to change? For one, I realise the "future tense" will become the "past tense".. How else is the article going to change because it seems like lot of work is going to be needed to be done during that week? - Bhavesh.Chauhan 15:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well for one I don't think the trailers will need such a large section. They should be mentioned, but most of the information in them will not be relevant at that point anymore. Generally this sort of pre-release information will become redundant. John Hayestalk 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually most of the "future tense" will become "present tense". - .:Alex:. 15:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright fine, present tense even.. but will anything else change/removed? Perhaps we should look at GTA:SA as an example? - Bhavesh.Chauhan 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that within the first few hours of it being delivered/released to stores, a ton of editors will be jumping to throw in the introduction to the game, I'm sure. And after everyone's had a few days to get acquianted with the game, a lot of the features and plot info will be added. But that's just what will be changed and added, I'm not sure about how many things might change entirely. 12.107.246.188 09:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The strategy guide will be released 10 days earlier, heed this warning.. --nlitement [talk] 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New Wanted Level escape method

And other details: [6]. I haven't got time to work this into the article at the moment. John Hayestalk 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that specific info is in it, but there is a lot more detail that isn't. I have added a ref with name "games radar" for this already. John Hayestalk 12:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay Section

The Gameplay section really needs to be cleaned up, it's only got a few sources, and it's rapidly becoming a long list of "It has been confirmed"s. I suggest maybe subdividing it into subsections. John Hayestalk 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

so the heck what? I added some stuff I just thought up that would be cool. I'm sure that rockstar have added those things to the game.... Chegis 13:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MMORPG?

It states GTAIV is not an MMORPG, but features online play. GTA is not an RPG so that would be impossible.User:Trent12345409

Umm... what are you getting at? You didn't clarify what would be impossible. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:GTA IV is not an RPG so it cannot be an MMORPG.User:Trent12345409
He was pointing at that a game has to be an RPG to begin with in order to be an MMORPG. So, to correct the statement, it should say GTAIV is not an MMOG, but features online play. So if GTAIV were to be an MMO game, it would be an MMOG (massively multiplayer online game), and not an MMORPG (Massively multiplayer online role-playing game). Take care. 72.49.194.69 08:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Joshua
I guess there isn't a general agreement that a game must be an RPG in order to be an MMORPG, as no one has actually responded, Trent. 72.49.194.69 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua
I figured someone would have removed the "RPG" statements from the article. If it hasn't been done, do so, someone. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 14:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hypocricy?

the last paragraph of the article states this: "However, Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association, accused New York City officials of hypocrisy, for criticizing video games but not other forms of entertainment, such as books, films and television shows, which use New York City as the setting.[44]"

The word "hypocicy" is not used correctly. Can we change this please?

Changed it yesterday. Changed to "double standards". - X201 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

On the Wikipedia article it says that gta iv is being released 2nd quarter of 2008. IS THIS TRUE??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseg70 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 2 August, 2007 (UTC)

yes its true GTA IV has been delayed [7] [8]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.185.131 (talk) 21:53, 2 August, 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you could've checked the source that was cited, namely Take 2. It's even reached Slashdot. --nlitement [talk] 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On take 2's website, there is an annoucment that the game wil be delayed to 2008.Link:[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.165.209 (talk) 01:57, 3 August, 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up.--Swellman 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please figure out why GTA IV was pushed backed to 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseg70 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 August, 2007 (UTC)

The previous two discussions have links in them. - X201 08:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

this is bullshit. take-two must be shitting me. I pre-ordered it. what the fuck will happen now????? once again I just can not fully express my anger because this is really shock to me. Chegis 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar North's highly anticipated Grand Theft Auto IV (PS3, X360) has been delayed into 2008, publisher Take-Two revealed in today's financial update. The company cited the necessity of additional development time as the cause of the postponement. Previously planned for release on October 16, 2007, Grand Theft Auto IV will now arrive in the second quarter of the company's 2008 fiscal year

Better to wait a little longer than to get a buggy game. --Ouzo 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


On Rockstar games official website theres has been no announcement of a delay. The release date says 10/16/07. Makes me wonder if the news for a delay is a hoax or not. Reddyfire 8:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no release date at all on gta4.com. --nlitement [talk] 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The release date is for real. It's all over Yahoo! News and IGN. The official press release came out Aug. 2nd, 5:30EST. (Colorblindmike 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

According to Gamestop GTA IV Ships on 3/3/2008. (Reddyfire 11:39, 3 August 2007 (PST))

Amazon UK say 25 April and Amazon US says 30 June. The best thing to do is just wait. Until Take-Two make a public statement about a new release date. Only two entities know the date Rockstar and Take-Two I suggest we wait for an official announcement from them and ignore everyone else's blatant speculation. - X201 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An Austrian shop has had a release date listed for the PC version for quite a long time now.. 2008-03-08. Funny. Can't find a link right now, though.. --nlitement [talk] 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When pre-order GTA IV in rockstar warehouse, then the release date show's October 2007. So the Q1 2008 release date is not confirmed. Yoosq 10:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's from Take Two. It's official. That site has just yet to be updated.--Swellman 11:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This or this is too from Take Two and under GTA IV is written "Coming October 2007". So, the 2008 release is either confirmed or true. Yoosq 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A new section or update needet

We need to make a new section of and update about the delay of gta 4 realise Chegis 21:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been integrated into "Development". --nlitement [talk] 21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
As nlitement says, it was integrated into development. While it might be important at the moment, by the time the game comes out it really won't be that important to the game as a whole. John Hayestalk 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Contradicts itself

At the introduction of the article, it states GTA IV is "announced for release by Rockstar Games in second quarter 2008 for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360." However the side information states the release date as "Q1 2008". Could someone please fix it? The correct release date is Q2 2008, specifically March or April 2008. 72.49.194.69 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Done. .:Alex:. 15:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
March or April = 3rd and 4th months = FIRST quarter. I put it as Q2 at first because that's their fiscal year. This would be misleading. --nlitement [talk] 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Erm... March is Q1, April is Q2. John Hayestalk 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The confusion derives from calendar quarters and fiscal quarters not aligning. Take-Two's fiscal Q2 is Feb-Apr. At the moment the most exact release info is that it will be released in their fiscal Q2 so perhaps it might be clearer to use Feb-Apr as a release but it's the messier option. Provided that the article points out it's a fiscal Q2 that covers Feb to Apr and not a calendar Q2 (Apr-Jun) then IMO Q2 is OK. - X201 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"86% complete?!

This statement could be removed, because I'm guessing that the game is only just over 50% complete now that they've delayed the release. Davnel03 15:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The delay does not necessarily change overall progress. We don't even know why they have delayed it, and it could be for any reason. Until a reason is given, the percentage shall remain. .:Alex:. 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. You're actually proposing we guess to "around 50%" and put it in the article when we have nothing to back it up?►Chris Nelson 16:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not proposing it. I think the statement could be removed until the reason is given for the delay. Davnel03 17:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
But you have no hard evidence to say the game is less complete.►Chris Nelson 17:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly my point too. I wish I put it as simple as that, but I always happen to make things sound more complicated than they need to be. .:Alex:. 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. My reason for removing it is that it doesn't carry any weight as a reliable source. The citation is a link to a message board (not the problem in itself, but not a good start), that message board links to a PDF of an Online magazine. The 86% claim in that magazine is not in the text, or in a quote of any kind. It's in a graphic all on it's own at the end of the article (the whole article is mostly a review of the first trailer with suppositions based upon the content of the trailer) The 86% looks like a considered guess by the author of the article based on what they have seen in the trailer. - X201 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. John Hayestalk 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Q1 / Q2

We probably should not list Q2 (or Q1) as the release date. The source says fiscal Q2, but it doesn't say what their fiscal year is, so in theory it could be any time in 2008. nlitement seems to think their Q2 is our Q1, I got the impression their Q2 is our Q3, so you see the potential confusion. Until we get an exact source for the date (in calendar rather than fiscal year), or a source which explains their fiscal year, we should just leave 2008. John Hayestalk 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's neither. As I mentioned in my post above Take-Two's fiscal Q2 is equivalent to Feb-Apr which makes it both calendar Q1 & Q2 The ttpress citation (that has been erased during the date edit war - could someone please restore it as it has broken all other uses of the citation later in the article) press release had TTs fiscal year end date in it and a quick bit of maths later will give their Q2 dates. Sorry about the tone of this, message it's not aimed at anyone, my boss was standing next to my desk and I wanted to finish post quickly. - X201 08:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah apologies, I didn't see that when their fiscal year ended. In that case Feb - April is fine. John Hayestalk 13:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


If numerous stores Amazon.com/amazon.co.uk/play.com/game.co.uk have different release dates. Why is one more notable than the other?

The ttpress citation that was on the release date has been deleted again making it's use further down the article broken - Colud someone fix it, again, please? - X201 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)