Jump to content

Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.156.66.110 (talk) at 11:44, 20 October 2007 (→Insider information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

release date?

i work at a video game store in australia and today we recieved the release date sheets and on there it said that gta iv was set to be released in australia on march 15. Can anyone else tell me if there is any truth to this?

There are loads of release dates floating around at the moment. Various different on-line games stores have dates ranging from Jan 08 to June 08. A number of the editors have decided that the only date that matters is a release date stated by either Rockstar or Take-Two. So far the only valid date we have is that Take Two stated that it would be released in their financial second quarter of 2008 which gives us a window of Feb to Apr. This is the most exact, reliable and (most importantly) trustworthy information that we have so far. - X201 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and March 15 is equally away from the start of January and the end of April (So they wouldn't be too far away from the real release date).padddy5 19:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That February-April release is a fake. on that page is written "Coming October 2007". And the press release was August 2. It's been almost a month and it ain't updated. Yoosq 07:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all other other evidence suggests somewhere in that February-April range. We shouldn't change it just for one source, which probably has been forgotten or won't be updated until the final date is known. John Hayestalk 08:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. So now ROCKSTAR THEMSELVES state that it will be released in spring http://n4g.com/News-71922.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interpol007 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its official the release date for the ps3 is back at october. Says the official uk magazine. http://uk.playstation.com/games-media/release-calendar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interpol007 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No that means nothing, they just haven't updated. John Hayestalk 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amozon say that it is coming out april 25 for the uk. - chris 16 october 07

Locations and settings

Comprised of five boroughs based on the boroughs of New York City, as well as parts of New Jersey. Broker is the GTA IV equivalent of Brooklyn, Manhattan is now called Algonquin (a play on the fact that 'Manhattan' was also the name of a Native American tribe), Queens is now Dukes, the Bronx is Bohan, and New Jersey is Alderney (after the Channel Island of the same name. I dont see staten island included anywhere in this so shouldn't it be rephrased to something more like " all of the five boroughs except for staten island" or " it includes 4 out of the 5 boroughs of New York City ( not staten island)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.243.88 (talk) 23:01, 19 August, 2007 (UTC)

No, It is saying the game has five boroughs, based on the 4 boroughs of New York that are listed, and the one based on New Jersey. John Hayestalk 08:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before we head into an edit war (it's already been switched back and forward twice today), can we decide which logo we are going to use:

File:GTAIV Logo.jpg

or

File:GTA 4.jpg

John Hayestalk 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't see why we shouldn't use the boxart, but Nlitement seems to think that is wrong. I'm not greatly fussed either way, but we should have good reasons for one or the other. John Hayestalk 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the box art is just a mock-up and has been around for some time now. It's being used as a placeholder until the official artwork is done. That's just what I've heard and I'm not 100% certain. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't revert it a third time, ;). It's not final, but it's alright to put it there because that's what the press is circulating around now. --nlitement [talk] 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a PS3 boy but I think that boxart is just a mockup and when we have a pure logo I think we should use that considering it isn't PS3 only. Sadly. Darkwarriorblake 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it is probably a place holder mock-up. I'm not massively fussed as to which is used, although if the box art is used I think a note stating that it is unknown if this is the final artwork should be added. - X201 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that reverted the logo for the box art not realizing that it was a mock-up, though in hindsight I probably should have since the release date is so far away. I can't revert it back to the logo since I already have two reverts but the mock-up should definitely not be used since it's not an official image. - Throw 20:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bill! - Throw 20:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that explains it all. I hadn't released it was a mockup either. John Hayestalk 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The final box-art will most likely be the paneled artwork depictions like in pretty much all of the games so far. 12.107.246.57 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rating

Shall we just put a 'TBC' in the rating box to try and prevent anyone in the future from messing with it? TBC seems pretty standard for unreleased works.Darkwarriorblake 11:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah why not. John Hayestalk 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Rating Pending" is more appropriate since it's waiting for a rating. Any promotional material for a game that hasn't been rated has RP as a placeholder until it's rated. - Throw 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that works too. Its probably a regional thing because in the US its rating pending, in the UK its TBC. Oh wait, aren't we doing this article in British English? Well either works, need some more input but I guess for now just leave TBC unless someone thinks Rating Pending is better.Darkwarriorblake 06:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a place holder. The game either has a rating or it doesn't. When it has a rating fill in the rating field, otherwise just leave it blank, that is the whole point of fields not being displayed if there isn't any data in them. We don't create articles as place holders for things that we know will happen so there's no need to do the same with template fields. But forced to choose between one of them TBC sounds far more accurate than pending - X201 11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does have placeholders, for pictures in biographies for instance. Promotional material for unrated video games lists a game as RP because they have to. See both the image of the NYC ad and the image showing the Ultimate Collection. They both have RP on them. There shouldn't be a difference here. - Throw 12:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Taxibepot.jpg

Image:Taxibepot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I hate this fucking bot. - Throw 05:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it does a useful job. It shouldn't be too hard for someone to fill in the missing details. John Hayestalk 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it serves a useful purpose but take one look at my talk page; Ol' BetacommandBot has been annoying me regularly for the past few weeks. Makes me feel it's Big Brother sorta. - Throw 12:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, yeah. John Hayestalk 13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat by Thompson

Isn't Jackass Thompson banned from trying to ban Take Two's games? DAVID CAT 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is, but, unfortunately, that wouldn't stop him from filing another lawsuit. Any lawsuit, regardless of how frivolous, is allowed to be filed. Thompson doesn't have a chance, though, because Two-Take would be covered under parody laws. - Throw 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading the settlement I think Thompson could still sue Take-Two because the settlement regarded any "future games", so that could mean anything that comes after GTA4. - Throw 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. He can still sue using some sort of third party because the settlement only covered that "HE" can not interfere with Take-Two or Rockstar Games and any of their sales but it does not cover that if someone else helps him sue. If someone else hires him as their lawyer and brings any case to court in the future that involves Rockstar Games and Take-two, they can't do nothing bout it except trying to defend them selfs through-out the case. And....
  2. This is NOT a discussion topic(Notice on top of Discussion Page in orange like box). IF You wanna discuss this subject Go to GTA Forums or something but not here. This is a place where we talk about how to update the "Article" itself. Not Yours and others opinions.

Read >>> Thompson vs. Grand Theft Auto

--҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you chose to enter into, and in turn add to the discussion, only to finish by stating how this is not the place to discuss it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.162.25 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being neutral you probably shouldn't refer to him as "Jackass" John Hayestalk 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, he is a jackass, and secondly, NPOV only applies to articles, not talk pages: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. A talk page is neither an article or encyclopaedic content DAVID CAT 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was only a friendly suggestion, but if you are going to start throwing policy at me I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy, specifically The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies.. All I'm saying is that this page isn't the place for your opinions on Jack Thompson. John Hayestalk 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got me there i suppose, but do you or do you not consider him a jackass? DAVID CAT 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would watch what you Say(not to be mean or anything) Thompason Does have access to Wikipedia and if he does feel offended, like anyone else he could take action on the entire Wikipedia site and etc. So I would suggest do not discuss anything or opinions about him here. Go to the GTA4 forums or something and talk about him there, Here is a big NO Like What John Hayes Posted. Again The Talk page is to talk about how to "IMPROVE" the article not to express how u feel about someone or your opinions. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 22:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you honestly think he would read the talk page of the game he hates most in the whole world?DAVID CAT 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would ask how did he come to know about the mission in the game that is a reference to him? Really buying gamer magazines or on the Web. If he did not know anything about it THEN there will be no threat made towards Rockstar Games. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't have got it from wikipedia, which only mentioned the mission after he made a fuss about it DAVID CAT 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still It doesn't mean that does not check here. He already threatened the kotaku site because of a user who wanted to talk down about him. After that event, webmasters on certain sites that talk about him tried their best not to be the next kotaku and get sued because they were speaking their opinions. Who expected Jack to go on the kotaku forums and look for info. there? Like I said anything is possible and if Thompson feels threaten while on here, he wouldn't mind suing wikipedia for making a bias article about him with false information, banning his account and users threatening him. So please voice your opinions about him somewhere else but here. Thank You --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The jackass has an account here???? coooolDAVID CAT 11:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, there is no need to tempt fate. John Hayestalk 10:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i'll stop but only because this is getting off the point of my original question DAVID CAT 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

lets delete every unsourced statement in the article. ∆ Algonquin 10:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of doing something so drastic why don't we try finding sources first? - Throw 13:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless it's clearly incorrect, or legally dubious, lets leave it, and instead stick a {{Fact|date=September 2007}} behind it. John Hayestalk 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just hate reading an article and seeing those annoying [citation needed] tags because a) they look bad and b) they make you wonder if what you are reading is complete bullshit. Perhaps someone can make a list (maybe on TF:GTA) of statements that need sources... ∆ Algonquin 09:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the point, if you see them, try to replace them with a source, and they are also there to make the reader question if what they are reading, is for the want of a better phrase "complete bullshit". John Hayestalk 09:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, he does have the right to remove the "bullshit". The burden lies on the editor adding the dubious information, not others. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the citation needed flag has been in situ for quite a while (one month + in my opinion, but it is only a matter of opinion) feel free to remove them from the article and place them on the talk page stating what you have done, that way the information is not lost and the article does not have uncited information in it. - X201 21:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second unsourced statement in the new features section is complete bullshit (heard it here first) i have read every new article about the game (hell i submitted a few to the article) and not since the turkish mag fiasko have i seen so much crap so it is my understanding that if someone disputes an unsourced statement it can be removed so here i am disputing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which statement? "While in a taxi Niko can pay the driver more to go faster, or he can just listen to the radio and watch the city go past."? I have read that in the official Playstation magazine, i'll try and find a source. John Hayestalk 13:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you the exact source. It's PSU3 magazine issue 13 (The person who added the info told me which site the got it from and I was able to find out which magazine it had come from. Only problem is getting hold of a damn copy to verify the citation. I've asked on the VG Project and the Playstation project and no one has a copy of it. It was (now merged with Play magazine) published by Imagine Publishing. - X201 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When's it set?

It was supposed to be set in 2007 but it's being released in 2008. Do you think Rockstar will change it or leave it? On Game Stores UK it says that GTA IV is coming out the 4th of April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.127.77 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources saying it is set in 2007 either. Unless it is verifiable it's not worth mentioning. John Hayestalk 09:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as regards the release date, just trawl the internet and you will find loads of on-line stores all claiming to know the release date and every single one will be different. The simple fact is that Take Two are going to be releasing the game and they have not said when that will be. - X201 10:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading an interview with eather Dan or Sam Houser saying the game takes place in October, 2007. It would make sense because the game was supposed to come out on that month. Gamerzworld 01:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Edition

Is the preorder for the special edition now out of stock? If so, that should be mentioned. --Sycotherejekt 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cant be out of stock the game is not even in production stage yet. Its still in development.... --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it was said there was only a limited number of this edition. It's not technically out of stock, but that doesn't mean the entire quota wasn't already ordered.--Sycotherejekt 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is notable, and discussed in reliable third party sources, then yes. If it has been seen on some site such as play.com then no. John Hayestalk 07:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insider information

If i were perhaps a Rockstar employee and had information not yet released to the public, how would i go about adding information to the article seeing as there are no "official" sources on this information? just removing some facts that aren't true and adding a few small bits of information. 202.156.66.110 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Rockstar employee who is currently on holiday in Singapore. Perhaps? Nothing goes into the article unless it has a reliable source (Newspaper, Magazine, reputable online site) to back it up. - X201 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most important rules to remember is that verifiability is more important than "the truth". John Hayestalk 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, not being a liar helps.... Just puttin' that out there. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you guys are missing my point. how are you supposed to source things like that? when i said "just removing some facts that aren't true and adding a few small bits of information" i meant not huge things but small stuff. if i knew i was going to be answered by a few smart arse sweaty palmed jack offs who spend their time tracing IPs i would have phrased my question differently. and if i were going to pretend to be some kind of employee why the fuck would i use my I.P address and not make some random account? 202.156.66.110 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or if i wanted to be like you guys i would have found out the IP for ireland and then made a user account with that as my name so you guys would think i am some employee, you being the sweaty palmed jack offs you are
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&oldid=165821761"