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 14:53, 1 February 2008 (→release date?). 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

Best Buy and GameStop both have the release date as March 3, 2008. - joel 17 december 07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.175.5 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source that.  ? Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ? 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this today: [1] I wonder if we can use this source to reduce the timeframe for release. It seems relatively reliable to me. Though I wouldn't mind another source to back it up. John Hayestalk 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still financial Q2 according to Take Two press conference yesterday [2] - X201 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Though I assume the conference call refered to in the article I linked to is [3]. As I can't be bothered listening to 54 minutes of it I can't confirm what it says. So I can't be sure if they went into more detail and actually said Feb - March, or if the guy who wrote the article assumed that. Oh well. John Hayestalk 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is 1st of april according to xbox.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumboner (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.gtagaming.com it is april 22, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they get it from? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not confirmed, here's the quote they based that from:

"Games industry publication MCV has the scoop today on Grand Theft Auto IV's release date, claiming that the title will go on sale in the final week of April 2008. Citing sources "close to the game's publisher" they say that the game will go on sale in the United Kingdom on April 25th.

This appears to follow recent trends for Grand Theft Auto release dates, which have almost always been pushed back to be in the final week of Take 2 Interactive's fiscal quarters. Yesterday, the company said that the game would go on sale some time in its second fiscal quarter of 2008, which ends on April 30th.

A UK release date of April 25th would indicate that the game would release just prior to this in North America, with Tuesday April 22nd most likely. As usual though, Rockstar Games said that it does not comment on "rumours and speculation". 203.211.126.222 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to xbox.com the release date is 1st of april 08.and they are pretty damm official since this is the only date theyve said since the october date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumboner (talk • contribs) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of websites that have only had one date. It's a long standing consensus of this article that we are only going to change the date when we find a press release or public announcement by Rockstar or Take Two that the date is X - X201 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to sound a little more official from MCV, would be nice with a rockstar source though... [4] John Hayestalk 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or I could just look at the article before posting here ;) At least this long saga is over. John Hayestalk 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow april 29th can't wait, this is going to be SWEET. Its gonna be a big party that friday Vive la paris (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the proven date. Rockstar hasn't released the date yet. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me §

Contributions ♣ 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They sent a bulk email out today stating that as the date. I'm not exactly sure what more you need than that Klptysm.
Fair enought. That brings me to my next point, then: Wikipedia isn't a forum. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as I can tell, nobody has used it as such until you did just now (at least not in this topic). I invite somebody of authority to delete this message as well as the previous message by Klptyzm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.229.98.194 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. And yes, someone did used it as a forum in this very topic: there wasn't a reason to say that there's "gonna be a big party friday." Because I'm not on any mailing list from Rockstar or whatever I was totally unaware of the e-mail at the time. My "fair enough" statement was made merely to acknowledge this fact. I'd advise not jumping on the "hate on Klptyzm" bandwagon. And this particular statement may be the only time other than my very first edit that I ahve used a talkpage as a forum and I'm only doing this to make a point. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing Klyptyzm did broke the rules and guidelines for talk pages. John Hayestalk 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Klpt, why do you bother to waste your time with long winded scoldings and yet you never act on any of your threats. give up.

PC version

The has been no references or announcements saying that there will be a PC version! Msman (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know. that's why it isn't in the article. - X201 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That actually seems noteworthy to me. It's a divergence from the norm for the series. Malefic 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malefic (talk • contribs)
Not really. Since the new generation of GTA games (GTA3 onwards) the PC version has only been announced after the Playstation version has been released, and the last two GTA games (Liberty City Stories, Vice City Stories) saw no PC release at all. 88.109.31.235 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also interested in knowing whether they are going to make a PC version or not, and I think it would be worth mentioning the status of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.178.114 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty City Stories and VCS, were both going to be Portable only versions of GTA, but they released them on PS2 aswell. Seing as they were just cut down versions of the main GTA3 trilogy games, there was no reason to release them on pc, or Xbox for that same reason. --User:Kai81123 09:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well is it even OFFICIAL that it will be coming to PC, or just implied? If anyone has a link to this, it should absolutely be added to the article Dogma5 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC) .. but GTA not only got its start on PC, but GTA3, VC, and SA all appeared on PC a year later.[reply]

Box Art

Correct me if i am wrong, but aren't things like cover art supposed to be in low res? Right now the logo is pretty big... Perhaps it needs changing? ? Algonquin 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That usually happens only when someone points it out and tags the image.. silly bureaucracy. --nlitement [talk] 15:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's still right though. John Hayestalk 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I know that the vandalism doesn't seem to have been very heavy, at least not what I've seen but on a game this big we're bound to have idiots coming through here on a regular basis screwing it up. Especially as we get closer to a release date. Should this page not be protected from unregistered users?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already do have idiots coming through as any trawl through the history will show. One of the rules of protection is that it can't be used as a pre-emptive move. So it's a case of grin & revert it until we get a constant volume and then apply for protection. - X201 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You an never be too careful when it comes to protection. ~~`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the fuck were my edits reverted????!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!! Pippy Bongstockings (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was poorly written, purely opinionated and featured a person's name which could almost be interpreted as a personal attack. If you want your contribution to remain then perhaps look at this and this. .:Alex:. 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pippy, could you please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Ranting and swearing at other editors gets you nowhere. mattbuck (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pippy, you're going to get no where by swearing, take your mistake and know what you done wrong, making sure you don't mess up again.Liquinn (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age rating?

The age rating would probably be a 18+, however there's no sources, shall we wait for the game to come out, and then add the information on the age rank to buy the game to the article? Liquinn (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait for sources, whenever they come out and however they come out. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its gonna be rated M ... obviously —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.112.197 (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously how? do you have a source for "obviously"? John Hayestalk 11:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source, but simple deductive reasoning and extrapolation will tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that the game will be rated M (17+) by the ESRB. All games in the Grand Theft Auto series have been rated M, and almost all retailers in the United States and Canada refuse to carry products rated AO (18+). Rockstar couldn't and wouldn't allow the game to achieve an AO rating (it would be corporate suicide to produce an undistributable game), and dropping the rating to T (13+) would be insulting to the GTA series' loyal adult fans. --Jtgibson (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No source = not in article John Hayestalk 09:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - X201 (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never suggested otherwise. I'm just saying that it will be M (17+). ;-) --Jtgibson (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some previews have said that IV is less violent than the other games in the series. And from the trailers it looks to be like that, so maybe it will recieve a 15 rating. But I highly doubt it, knowing Rockstar. --User:Kai81123 09:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really deduce anything from the trailers. They wouldn't show the most violent (or anything that will make it a 'M') bits anyway because it would restrict when and how they can show the trailers. ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AGE RATING CONFIRMED!!!IT IS RATED "M" IN AUSTRAILIA! USA=? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.201.151 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the source? ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, GTA IV has been classified MA15+ in Australia for "Strong violence, Strong coarse language, Drug and sexual references". A source has been provided in the article. It will most likely be rated M by the ESRB, and 18 by the BBFC if previous games in the series are any indication. Of course ratings should not be published in the article until they have been confirmed. Sillygostly (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That's cool. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 14:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Ring = King of the Ring

This may sound pedantic, but could somebody registered change Seryoga's song's translation for Король ринга from 'King Ring' to 'King of the ring' please? Ринга is the Accusative form of ринг and not nominative, so whilst translation between Russian-English will never be one hundred percent, 'King of the Ring' is a lot closer and less silly sounding then 'King Ring'. I'd do it myself, but I'm not a registered user, and don't intend to become one. Thanks if someone could do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.125.99 (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may very well be correct, but the only source on that statement says it is called 'King Ring'. If you can provide a source for 'King of the ring' then it can be considered. John Hayestalk 09:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, if it was "king ring" to begin with, it would be "ринг королей". --nlitement [talk] 14:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It could of course be that it was released in English language countries with a slightly different title. Either way we need a source to change it. John Hayestalk 13:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with John here for the most part. So far everything I've seen with the English name has called it King Ring, including Rockstar in an interview with IGN. OptimumPx (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt suppose to change it into 'King of the ring', it's right. Seryoga owns a label called KingRing, it maybe refers to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.171.92.131 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the original poster: Yeah I'm a little crummy with this setup, so I don't know if this is the correct way to go about replying to... myself. Quite simply, Король Ринга would (by all means it at least 'should') mean King of the Ring, so I don't think it refers to his label as such. I had a look at Seryoga's lyrics, he uses two English words... King Ring :D . I have a feeling all this confusion stems from Seryoga's own mistranslation. Unless he just thought King Ring sounded so cool :P . I have a feeling his label King Ring as you describe is the same mistranslation... pfft, even the gals in T.A.T.u can speak some English :D . No, you are correct to leave it, I suggested the change based on the language itself, not a Slavic-Eminem's version of things :) Aw well, at least some of you learnt a bit of Russian from it all. By the way, I should have said 'Genitive case' before, not 'accusative case'... if anyone cares :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.145.201 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to correct you on the case, so, yes: somebody cared 193.190.253.146 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Trailer Confirmed

A spokesperson for Rockstar Games has confirmed to German gaming site Cynamite that a fourth Grand Theft Auto IV trailer will be released prior to the game appearing on store shelves. According to the unnamed employee, the trailer retains the style of the previous three in that it is movie-like and contains no direct gameplay footage.

The site makes no specific mention of any release date for the trailer.

Source: Cynamite.de (Via Forums) www.gtagaming.com/ www.planetgrandtheftauto.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.109.178 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really call it confirmed until Rockstar comes out and announces that there will be a 3rd trailer. Just because one site claims that Rockstar told them something doesn't make it so. OptimumPx (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the "unnamed employee" thing makes it suspect enough. These aren't national secrets, so why would the employee hide his name? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1080p resolution?

The article states that the trailers were done on an XBox360 in 720p resolution, but I have seen rumours (e.g. this one) in some forums that the PS3 version will be in "true" 1080p resolution. Is there a verifiable source confirming what resolution / frame rate the final game will be (both 360 and PS3)? Cheers, Onesecondglance (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That I've seen....no. The only resolution that's been confirmed at this point is the 720p they used for the trailers. OptimumPx (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong price for uk special edition

uk special edition is priced at 59.99 it is 69.99 even the source linked to it says that it is wrong can some one please change it. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.186.184 (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you go as far as mentioning it on a discussion page, why don't you CHANGE IT yourself? --nlitement [talk] 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is semi protected so anon IPs can't edit it. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prices. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions."
I've also removed "limited" from the start of the sentence as there was no citation to support it.- X201 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to point it out butone all this needed was for someone to change the price and 2 the guy that responded first really needs to work on his attidue her you have someone who is trying to make a contribution to wikipedia being lectured about something. all it needed was a meantion to get about about being semi editable and you give the person a going over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobol (talk • contribs) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of the info wasn't aimed at the original poster in any way, shape or form. - X201 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Weather in Liberty City (Rumors)

Here is a video of the GTA III Snow mod for the PC: [5]

Rumors from GTA fans that R* should feature a new snow weather for both the PS3 and the 360. This weather could affect vehicles and bike's handlings and thus sliding it out. This is'nt the forums. Those are rumors. Professional Gamer (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, if they are just rumors, we can't add anything about them. Did you bring it up because it's in the article and it needs to be removed or were you just pointing it out for future reference? ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, soemoen else posted that reply didn't they? It's confusing when the SineBot doesn't come by. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to add them yet, until R* has confirmed new heavy weather conditions. Until then, it's up to R* where or not to add severe weather conditions, such as snow, hailstorms, hurricanes, etc. Professional Gamer (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no snow. R* said it themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary3weldon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post up a link and see if it's true? Professional Gamer (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles in GTA4

Can anyone please create an article List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto IV in Grand Theft Wiki or merge it into List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldaz (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is asking a question like that even allowed on Wikipedia, let alone a talk page? I'm seriously asking. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is'nt a game guide material. That can only make the fans easier for them to find Professional Gamer (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles were created last week. And speedy deleted shortly afterwards. - X201 (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kikizo, GamesRadar, IGN, VideoGamer, and ComputerAndVideoGames preview

Kikizo, GamesRadar, IGN, VideoGamer, and ComputerAndVideoGames have just unveiled their latest previews of Grand Theft Auto 4, the first major collection of online GTA IV previews since July of last year. The previews are based on a 90 minute preview session granted to them by Rockstar Games last week.

Yes, I copied and pasted this. The page containing all the info can be found here. I don't have the skill to add this onto the article and I guess that this could be very useful. Gronf (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a release date.. http://games.kikizo.com/news/200801/037_p8.asp "There's not long to go. Tune in again in about a month for our eagerly awaited hands-on impressions of the game, before our final review close to the game's release in April." Should we add it? It's definitely credible, but it's not directly from Rockstar (indirectly, though). --nlitement [talk] 00:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, else where in the article it says they've only been told that it will be out "before the end of april" which is pretty vague and is covered in the Wikipedia article by the official press release saying Q2. I think considering the delay and amount of speculation from stores and the media that an official announcement on the release date is essential. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone agrees with me on this. I didn't reply because I honestly we should wait for a more official source but the prospect of actual previews sort of threw me off. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until Rockstar releases a date, there is no date. It could slip or something and RS have said they will not commit to a date until its guaranteed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Motion

Anyone want to add anythign on natural motion? I know nothing about it, but it seems to be a big deal.

Um...with all due respect, what are you talking about? ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he/she's talking about the new character animation technology mentioned in the Features section. Not sure if they're on about the company or the technology though? I think what's already in the article is enough really, and the company has it's own article which is linked to. ChimpanzeeUK (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Figured it was about a game mechanic. I haven't been keeping up enough with it to understand what they were saying. Yeah, I feel what's in the article is enough. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 14:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


no flags in infoboxes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Release_dates

Within the infobox, release dates should be provided using the template. Even if this format is not used, 'do not use flag icons in the infobox', instead, state the region/country by name or by their 2 or 3-letter country codes. Xenocidic (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since a "worldwide" country code doesn't exist, I think we should continue to use the "worldwide" symbol, should a game receive a simulataneous worldwide release. "Worldwide" in plain lettering looks silly in the infobox. Sillygostly (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sillygostly (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

Can we give game a ESRB rating of RP (rating pending) due to I see it everywhere where they are promoting GTAIV. Patrolman89 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RP is not a rating. It's used by advertisers to tell audiences that the game is yet to be classified. The OFLC in Australia has a similar rating logo which says something along the lines of... "This film/game is yet to be classified. Check the classification closer to the release date". The very message may also air prior to trailers and such. Once the ESRB rates the game, simply post it in the article as I don't see the necessity of including superfluous "TBA" notices throughout the article. Sillygostly (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when are we going to expect a list of the bands that will be in the game's radiosations?

You know, all the hip hop artists, rock bands, country artists, and all of that. Radiohumor (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know yet. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the rate it's been going it looks like indie bands, although this may change. I hope they stay with indie bands, since nobody will dispute that the majority of the mainstream **** that is out today is absolute garbage. Radiohumor (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's speculation and somewhat unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a forum and especially not a place to express your distastes of music. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Edition

A new special edition image has been released and should probably replace the old one (as it contains the updated boxart); http://img.hardgame2.net/noticias/HardGame2/gta-iv_ps3_clean_resize.jpg

I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how. 84.202.85.167 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how this image isn't on any other website or Google image search. - X201 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D1. --nlitement [talk] 22:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
has anyone else noticed how the box in the picture has an 18+ rating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.66.110 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year

Has there been any news on which time (year) is this game going to be based on? And please don't come out with bullshit comments like "wikipedia isn't a forum" because what I'm saying is relating to the article. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Today." --nlitement [talk] 21:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually I don't know if that has been confirmed by a source. John Hayestalk 23:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember but it seems to be pretty well acceptedx that the game takes place in modern time, originally 2007 but could be 2008 now to compensate for the altered date. Regardless, without a source it can't be added to the article.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's going to be based on present day, just like III? --Flesh-n-Bone 11:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources = we can't say. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone place this link in GTA IV, links?

http://en.wikigta.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueYoshi97 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No fansites, sorry. --nlitement [talk] 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

I added a new image of GTA4 in stores. Gaogier Talk! 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they dummy cases? If so, I think that should be specified under the image. Sillygostly (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aeroplanes vs. airplanes

to stop the edit wars why not just say "planes" ? Xenocidic (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. "plane" may have multiple meaning but when used in conjunction with the word "fly"? "fly planes"? give me a break. (this is in response to the edit summary for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&curid=2300721&diff=188089447&oldid=188072951 )Xenocidic (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Because its been UK English for months now and its well posted that it should be so. Compromising with people who refuse to read isn't really a good way to handle things. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. If we do that, why don't we just "neutralize" all vernacularly-biased vocabulary then? ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be "neutralise" Klptyzm ;) John Hayestalk 08:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So nobody else besides me thinks that this is just a bunch of pedantic bullshit meant to grow somebody's Wikipenis by following some arbitrary rule despite the multitude of times the article's language has been attempted to change? And instead of properly responding to the demand for American English by just changing all BrE words to AmE, we have to still insist on BrE EVEN WHEN THE MAJORITY THE SOURCES are American English (which I believe is the real policy when deciding over BrE/AmE). I suggest all fellow editors to stop pissing everybody off and just change the article to AmE, once and for all. --nlitement [talk] 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rules is rules. If you don't like the rules debate to change them. I'm not saying I like them (it does seem a touch silly in this case), but while they are the way they are I will follow them. John Hayestalk 13:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way if you want to debate: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. John Hayestalk 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nlitement, there's many reasons to use either form of English; It's set in America and has an American publisher, but it's a product made in Britain by a British company. As there's conflicting reasons to use either form of the language, that's why we use WP:ENGVAR. Terms like pedantic bullshit and Wikipenis aren't very civil and I suggest you relax and have a cookie. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 14:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As BillPP said, its a United Kingdon product (Scottish specifically I think) but not American and the fact its largely set in a fictional american styled city does not give Americans ownership of it. The BRE standard has worked fine and its only a few that are having issues with something which should not be an issue. I don't like spelling Colour as Color but I do it on american BBS for the sake of it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources is American.. --nlitement [talk] 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the game isn't. It can't be helped that most major game entities are American, it can be helped the game isn't.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that in game it will likely be spelled "airplane" ?Xenocidic (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use 'fact' and 'likely' in the same sentence. Its still beyond the point and reaching for an excuse to make it American English.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the grammar lesson. For the record I could care less about this American vs. British pissing contest, I was the one who suggested we just say "planes" to be neutral. Xenocidic (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I understand it this way: there are those who want British English are Brits who don't cry over anything but want to bother others by coming up with their own rules, and then there are those who want American English simply because it's more convenient to editors, is more common here, is used in the game, is used in almost ALL SOURCES ARE AMERICAN ENGLISH, etc. simply said there are people who WANT American English and there are people who blindly follow a rule I doubt even exists even though they don't "want" BrE if you know what I mean. --nlitement [talk] 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source that uses the word "airplane" and replace the citation. to invoke a britishism i "can't be arsed" to do that, but be my guest =) Xenocidic (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) ENGVAR doesn't work by where the citation comes from. 2) The actual example in WP:ENGVAR is the airplane/aeroplane one and suggests Fixed wing aircraft as the compromise. Which is good because now we can both revert it when it gets changed away from Fixed wing aircraft to Airplane/aeroplane. - X201 (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. I misunderstood the note added to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&diff=187800467&oldid=187799920 , i thought he was referring to the cited article and not the present (wiki) article. Thank you for the clarification. xenocidic (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its source is AMERICAN, so what's going on, huh? Clearly, none of you have ANY valid argument for ANYHTING here. THE SOURCE IS IN AmE, so what's going on? And I don't think that there are any other things in this article besides "aeroplane". So yeah, the source is in AmE, therefore changing it to airplane will change the whole article to AmE, because it's the only thing we've been arguing over since "installment" was removed and it's the only thing that makes this article BrE. Btw., Xenocidic, I'll give you another grammar lesson: "I could care less" = "there's a chance for me to care less" = this is NOT "I couldn't care less". :( This is why we can't have nice things. And also, Take 2 is the company "responsible" for the game, it's only developed in Scotland, they're the ones whose stocks you buy and the ones you sue or inquire for support, etc. if you have a problem with this game, and they're American. --nlitement [talk] 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nlitement, the origin of the source has nothing to do with if an article is American/Australia/British English. The type of English is governed by whether the subject of the article has strong national ties. James Bond is indisputably British, the Sydney Opera House is indisputably Australian, The White House is indisputably American the strong ties of these subjects is what governs the version of English that is used. GTA IV is in a bit of a grey area: The original idea is British, the coding is British, the publishers are American and the game's story is set in America. So its an article where we need a bit of give and take, along with compromise on all sides. Except the Aussies ;) - X201 (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it more convenient to editors? THe article has functioned well for many months. THe only people complaining are those who can't comprehend the word aeroplane. As if its some alien device and they're struggling to make it operate.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed-wing aircraft works for me. Xenocidic (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, consistency. Why is GTA San Andreas in AmE? And why are all other GTA articles too? Perhaps because they don't use arbitrary reasons to justify anything other than AmE, so yeah. Just like the AACS code thingy butthurt debate on Wikipedia, I took the better side (keeping it in the article) and it turned out that I won, because eventually things turn out right. And so will this article inevitably become AmE with the influx of new editors and the fact that the game has AmE in it. --nlitement [talk] 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ::Nlitement, the game has been developed in England and Scotland in one form or another for all of the games in the series. Your only point seems to be that so many Americans have changed the article to their own means that compromises have been made to ensure they don't keep doing it and now so many compromises have been made that you're arguing the entire article should be American English. Thats not compromising, thats idiots who can't read comments winning out. It started as BRe, its a UK developed and CREATED game and the article, should remain so. Get over it.

EDIT: As for those articles, they either started in AMe or just got overriden over time because no editor has that little a life to keep fighting for things that just inevitable will be changed again by people who can't read.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pointed out that R* North is in NO way representative of the video game. Of course I know they're Scottish! But the PUBLISHER is Take 2. They're the ones you sue if you have a problem with GTA IV, contact for support if you've got a problem with IV, buy stocks from if you want to profit from GTA IV, etc. They can change their developer any time they want. IV might as well be developed by EA if they choose to decide so, because they're the ones who own the names and trademarks. It's been Take 2's game ever since R* took over DMA Deisng, Rockstar North just does the labor. --nlitement [talk] 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its developed in the UK, written by UK staff, designed by UK staff, etc, etc. You sue Take 2 because they approve the sale of the product, R* only create, CREATE, the game, Take 2 are the ones who decide what has been made is acceptable for public release and take the brunt if they don't check for things like Hot Coffee. The entire series is also one big parody of America from an outside perspective. It's not set in America, its set in a parody take of everything American. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nlitement, you need to relax a bit. You've made some very uncivil comments directly at editors and their contributions. In the cases of articles that have grown originally using a certain variant, the article is generally kept in that variant unless there's a reason to (such as American specific or Commonwealth specific). As this topic could go either way, that's when ENGVAR kicks in. San Andreas is written in AmE because that's how it grew originally then. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. British English has overridden American English. And for the record, I'm not English, so it isn't just British people supporting Brit English. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boroughs

Does anyone know if they'll have places like marcy projects in brooklyn or other places like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.233.162 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_IV&oldid=188384409"