Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Frpm WP:RfD:

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

---

Voice artists confimred

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

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

gta4live stupidty

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

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

DATE

Someone has edited the date, taking the European and American release dates as being the same when they're NOT. I'm reverting it back. --Jiei 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you add a source for that? The official site only mentions the 16th. Rafert 14:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal of rumors section

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

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

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

on March 29 thatts when the trailer comes out we'll see whats up ifd its Toyko Botaca whatever i remeber hearing Toyko and Bogata was the oriinal name for San Andreas also Sin city as everyone says was its name and the charater was differnt it wasnt CJ in the Beta version it was Tommy Vercetti the early images showed him with sun glasses in the City of Los Santos and appeared to look differnt the cars and himself were graphical well anyway im thinking Carcer City its been mentioned in all the Grand Theft Auto starting at GTA3 and the newest in GTA:VCS well yeah that trailer will tell us everything we need to know the charter and the loction is whats gonna show in the trailer--Butterrum 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Information

This, perhaps, might be too "fan-like" or "fanatic," but I find this man in the Rockstar North official page to look just a little too much like Claude Speed from GTA 2, if not Claude from GTA 3; I bring this up because I feel that it is, at least, somewhat noteworthy. I do stress to you that this is speculation and one of the main reasons why I've noted this is to find out how many feel the same way and if this would be valid enough for posting into the article. BishopTutu 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Don't respond to this then... ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 01:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, this guy seems to have ginger hair and isn't dressed the same. In GTA 2 claude wore a vest and in GTA 3 a long sleeved leather jacket, wearing black or dark green trousers ... in fact I can't note any similarities apart from the fact that it's a caucasian male with an item of black clothing! Yeanold Viskersenn 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, was more focusing on him looking like Claude Speed rather than GTA 3 Claude. Also, his hair and pants are somewhat similar to Claude Speed's in the GTA 2 short movie (the only real picture we see of him). I feel they look too similar for a coincidence. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 14:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

look you idiot BJ Smith says it on KCHAT

yeah thats R*s mascot Claude Speed--Butterrum 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the same guy. The clothes look different to both GTA2 and 3 Claude and the hair looks wrong. I decompiled the .swf file on the page and found no use of the word "Claude" which would be a good indication that Rockstar are reusing the same character. There was no other indication either. So I don't think this should go in the article unless there was something specific said by Rockstar about it. It's too speculative with no proof. BillPP ^(Talk) 15:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

i think its the same guy its a PS1 game remember the ps1 had poor graphics and they both have the first name Claude they have the same clothing as well i don't understand how people can say these to people are different people i mean come on there the same person look at them and in the GTA2 intro movie Claude as a real person had a leather black jacket and same hair style and same shse and pants and noticed how both are mute huh i wonder why maybe because there the same person?~Butterrum~

That's not even what I was talking about. I was talking about this man in the Rockstar North official page, but it should probably be ignored now; that was more of my opinion rather than a fact. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah thats the mascot of R* Claude Speed whatr about him acctaly the background in the webpage looks just like a place i seen while playing Manhunt witch is set in Carcer City i was wondering if this is somehow a hint the R* North websaite also list Manhunt and soon Manhunt 2 as a part of the series--Butterrum 17:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if GTA IV does end up in Carcer City, no official sources at this moment make such claims. I'd also like to ask you to please cease making unsourcable claims; you've gotten in trouble over this before and you actually do need to stop. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i didnt do nothing ok this very ugly word u use i never said Carcer City was gonna be the loction im just using past clues like in GTA3 there was a ad for MIAMI and it was mentionedx alot comes to noticed ah they made a GTAVC in GTAVC BJ smith said he beaten the San andreas eses and what omg GTASA came out GTASA however shown Liberty City and Carcer City alot and that led to what GTALCS in GTALCS Carcer City was mentioned and Vice City OH LOOK GTAVCS came out i have no idea what it says in GTAVCS but a friend heard some ped say he was a plumer once in Carcer City this mitght all be a puzzle and Manhunt2 is still coming out and that might provide info and stuff thats gonna be in the game and Claude Speed is Claude just look how the guy walks in the R* offical page he walks jhust like Claude dose in GTA3 and the background of the page is what appears to be Carcer City i never said it was gonna be there u NEED TO STOP WITH THREATEN WITH UGLY WORDS RACIL SLURS AND DEATEING STUFF THATAS NOT OYURS ok because in my country u are Mr.hokala my touge--Butterrum 04:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, please stop making unsourced claims; "clues" from video games are not sources. 1. I never heard BJ Smith say anything about San Andreas, so I'm confident you're, or whoever told you that, are lying, 2. the background of that page is just purple blocks and whatnot (unless it's been changed), so there's no way in Hell, Hades, or Bob Saget's basement that you could determine that that looks like Carcer City, 3. there is no evidence you could bring up that proves that the Rockstar North page guy walks like Claude, and 4. I haven't threatened you or used racial slurs, and I'd really like you to stop accusing me of doing such; I don't want whatever reputation I have to be tarnished by claims from someone with an irrational, and unjustified, I might add, feud with me. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

blah blah blah blah blah thats all u say first of all u idiot he says it on a converstion on Kchat 2nd u havnt even been on the site have u u idiot just click and point on the subject then click again SIMPLE even for your preppy skills 3rd play GTA3 alot more and walk OMG its so simple moron and watch how Claude Speed walks on the website watch duh and im saying it MIGHT be Carcer City seeing as ive played MAnhunt and the areas in the backgroun is fimalar your anoyying self centered u got my friend deatled and you did break rules dont HIDE them ddont tell me u didnt u just told me sorry but sorry dosent cut it anymore no not from u your not to be trusted i heard and i know no personal attacks blah blah i get the point your worser then Jack Tompson--Butterrum 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I won't dignify this mindless rant with a response. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Known Information

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

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

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

Add "PC" to "platforms"?

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

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

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

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

Given the heavy focus on the XBox360 release, and MS's "Games for Windows" TM push (in addition to the series history), it's probably a safe bet. But until there's official word I agree on holding back. -AS

Midnight Club 3 Dub Edition was too big for DVD. GTA IV is scheduled for release on the PC. I'm sure. It is guaranteed, the game is released on PC, it will be 5 - 6 Gigabytes in size. GTA:SA was also released first to the PS2, and not for the PC. After being released to the PS2, it was then released for XBOX and PC. Yoosq 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

rumor cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's with all the fansites?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Installments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GTA London is a expention pack not a stand alone game like GTA:SA or GTA:VC ~Butterrum~

Brandon- that is wrong. london could be played without the GTA1 disc. I never had GTA 1 but i always managed to play it fine. 86.131.149.12 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

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

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

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

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

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

Requested Change

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

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

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

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

GTA4Live fake screenshot speculation

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

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

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

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

Note about the GTA fansites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exclusive?

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

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

Xbox 360? GTA was originlly just with Sony.

no you see R* might make it exculsive seeing as Sony is being rude nowadays well they might switch deals and avode Sony--Butterrum 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

erasing some stuff

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

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

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

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

Image Suggeston

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair enough. Goroliath

WHOA

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

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

--Dilcoe

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

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

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

Damn this was so funny I allmoust craped my pants!!! :D "It is possible that GTA IV will be a MMOG, due to network programming blowjob positions" :DD chegis 12:46, 14 January 2007 (EET)

Rumours and Speculation Section

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

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

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

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

HD-DVD format

i read on the article that the game was being release on HD-DVD for xbox 360. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Unlikely as 360 uses the DVD format, but also likely as GTASA was rumored to take much of a DVD on the PS2 and Xbox, and this would need much more. Let us research this, and if that is the case, cite it.--WhereAmI 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to DVD--Falcon866 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats for the best. User:Chegis changed it, I believe they were just trying to help. But I still believe it is a possibility.--WhereAmI 22:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

THat willl never happen bez the HDDVD for the xbox is only for movies not for games

Is any of this based on sources? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

man shut up let people think freely they people got a good thought when they said GTA:IV will be how to Americans say it lolBIGGER--Butterrum 15:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you, and possibly others, should acquaint yourselves with what Wikipedia is not, and you'll discover that this is not a place to "think freely," but a place to discuss the article and its condition. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

130 Vice City Developers

When this info was added by Frakistan it seemed very unencyclopedic as the editor claimed it was their own research (see the edit here), So I added a {{verify source}} tag. At some point somebody cited an article backing up the 150 developer figure for SA, but nothing backing up the 130 figure for VC. I re-added the {{verify source}} tag as the only source of this was still Frakistan. As the verify source tag was removed again, I've put a {{fact}}tag because the wording is much better but there's still no source for the 130 developers. --BillPP ^(Talk) 16:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Look in the sleeve notes for Vice City, there are almost exactly 130 non voice/motion capture staff listed that worked on the game. I really don't think it necessitates an actual written reference, as if someone's going to need to verify this in case it's a wily hoax. There are a lot of other things stated in the article which don't need specific references, so why this? Yeanold Viskersenn 17:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info on the source, I've changed the wording accordingly. --BillPP ^(Talk) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The {{update}} banner template

This banner was added a while ago. What information is it referring to that hasn't been included yet? The only thing I could find is this article about some analyst. I don't think that warrants the update tag. Should the template be removed from the page? --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Peter Moore image needed?

I cant see how this guy showing arms can be encyclopedic. The text is sufficient: put yourself in the reader POV is really informative show a guy with a tatoo anouncing a game? --Abbalibaba 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah because hes the one whom announced the games release for the 360 and the 360 version was released first--69.205.63.246 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

its not needed, no. The 360 version is not out yet and will not be released first either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.7.253 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, and the photo is still not encyclopedic either. Wikipedia is not a gaming magazine. --Abbalibaba 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but this is a gaming article and the image is relevant to the article in question. Perhaps when some more directly useful images become available it can be replaced, but at the moment it is the best GTAIV-related image available, there is nothing unencyclopedic about it - it is accurately sourced, of a good quality and exactly depicts the subject matter of the section it is included in. Neither is it biased towards the XBox 360 release. The facts are related to the XBox 360 so this is inevitable. There is absolutely no harm in the image being there. I have replaced it for these reasons. Yeanold Viskersenn 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

the 360 and the PS3 version is coming out at the same time where do you people get your info a alleyway--Butterrum 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Engine NOT confirmed!

The article states in its introduction that RAGE will be used as game engine, citing PlanetGTA as its source, which itself cites MTV. However, MTV is neither a reliable source, nor is it clear on that part. PlanetGTA's editor was just speculating, what makes it a rumor, not a confirmed fact. Same with the euphoria Motion Synthesis Engine (which isn't mentioned by the article yet, but might be soon). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.74.92.114 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

R* mentioned the RAGE engine to--Butterrum 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

PS3 with episode??

not true R* did not conform this it was a sorse that conformed this but not R* or R* North so its not a fact also R* and Peter Moore both stated that it was EXCLUSIVE for the XBOX 360 and is avalible after a month on Xbox Live market so the info about the PS3 is false untill R* SAYS SO not some magizine--Butterrum 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

game engine

--24.236.89.23 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)This article says it will use the RAGE engine, but why doesn't it say anything about NaturalMotion's euphoria Engine, which it is almost definitely going to use? NaturalMotion and Take2 have announced the partnership with Rockstar Games, and now we know it is working with Rockstar North in particular, who is making GTA IV. (news article on http://www.gta4.net/news/index.php) edit: I see Butterrum already mentioned this, but since then a lot of new stuff has been announced.

I have updateted the article about this. ---User:Chegis 17:09 11 March 2007 (utc)

so kind of you to mention me well R* have annosed (sorry for my spelling) the RAGE engine they also said they were working with a whole new compney a compeny thats good at making PEDs i hear like make them all look differnt and if they are the same one of them whould have differnt clothing or somthing but me myself is eexitted to see the loction of the GTAIV--Butterrum 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RAGE is a physical engine, whereas Euphoria is an engine of rendering live movements and behaviors of characters. These are two completely separate types of engines. 74.116.92.202 17:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

true RAGE engine has been conformed well that other engine hasnt --Butterrum 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WHY??????

who is the asshole who is deliting my coments and updates? and why do do you do this???? why? are you from R* and you dont want for everyone to know the plot ideas i know? ---Chegis 15:27 march 14, 2007 (utc)

who? i cam a huge R* fan and is studying to work with them i dont deatle ideas so it must be that London guy who dealted my ideas --Butterrum 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

no i never delete anything some one is deletiting my ideas about Monaco and in-car sat radio --Chegis 12:24, 15 march 2007 (utc)

i said London guy not England guy but yeah i know its not you its just SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN A PEST not yelling you get the point that guy who deated everything got my friend delated he thinks hes so smart--Butterrum 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I didn't get anyone "deleted"; he got himself blocked by constant personal attacks. Don't bring petty feuds to talk pages either or this discussion will be closed as well. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

About the removal of discussions...

I'd like to start off by apologizing about my removal of discussions, for those that are mad, but at the same time, if all you're going to talk about is speculation and OR, then there is no place for these discussions they will be removed; the main reason why I removed them is some of them were becoming increasingly hostile and, like I previously stated, some were filled with nothing but OR, and, if your "plot ideas" are true and sourcable, then please provide a source so we can get this information into the article as quick as possible. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i was trying to tell the resion why im talking about what i have to say but you dealte it again--Butterrum 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete others' comments on talk pages just because you think unsourced speculation has no place here. OR doesn't apply to talk pages. (I for one don't mind it and wish there were more rumors about the game listed in the article.) As per the talk page guidelines you may continue to remove comments that are hostile towards other editors. --70.128.117.33 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. So a conversation that is, in no way, benefitting the article can continue? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I've just answered my own question: talk page guidelines also say that "irrelevant conversations are subject to removal," which is exactly what I did; all of the conversations i removed, outside of the hostile ones, were purely speculation and all of it was simply people's opinions and interpretation of "clues" from games and other media. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to that, the Talk page guidelines says sources discussed should be secondary sources, not primary ones like clues in a game. The specific line in the policy is: Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research. So Any discussion like what's taken place (and has been removed) should not be here. I support the removal of these types of conversations. --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge with a view to prompting further investigation... Anyway, it looks to me like an inconsistency or contradiction in the guidelines, so I can't really argue with it. It just never seemed like standard practice on Wikipedia to remove others' harmless comments on talk pages, even if they didn't benefit the article. --64.149.40.132 08:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason even have discussions about the subjects because there would be nothing to investigate anyway; most of it was along the lines of "I think it's gonna be in Carcer City" and other stuff like that, which, like I just said, can't be investigated. I feel that guideline you posted means something along the lines of an educated extrapolation of information, that is, an educated, somewhat supportable, guess, such as "is it possible that 'so-and-so' is gonna be the hero of the next game because of the ending in the first game?" or something similar. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

first id like to say if wikipedia says jump of the brige we whopuld be seeing KLP and Bill as the first to jumping off Carcer City has been mentioned in everygame starting GTA3 like i said and even had a AD and flight sqdule in GTASA and the resion many think CLaude might contine off where he left off like i said way b4 taht GTA3 ended like there was more to it it might be true that it will start moff were it was--Butterrum 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can any of this be put in the article? No it cannot. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not your theories or speculation of what the storyline/characters/location will be. The reason it cannot go into the article is because of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines requiring verifiable information. So if it cannot go in the article it should not really be discussed here. I understand you want to chat about whatever may happen in GTA4, I recommend you go to this site: gtaforums.com. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing such things. To emphasise, the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Anything that's redundant or irrelevant could be removed by someone. --BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add I will continue to remove unconstructive discussions, if they, in no way, will benefit the article. And I'd also like to add that I, in fact, would jump off a bridge if Wikipedia told me to, regardless of Wikipedia being an inanimate, untangible website that is totally and utterly incapable of speech. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

you mean like u always do --Butterrum 04:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean; and I'm not trying to spark a conflict. I'm really asking. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah yeah thats what u always say till some1 gets hurt or jumps off the bridge with u u know your right about the Lazlow thing by half your halvf right i nopticed in real life Lazlow makes his talk show thingy avelible only in the USA that rules out London i guess??? sceance its not in the USA and the talk show isnt even over there--Butterrum 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What?? I don't understand what you're talking about. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that "Butterrum" might have a better chance of getting positive responses to his comments if he bothered to type in something resembling comprehensible English. How the hell do you get "sqdule" from "schedule"? (if that's even what you meant) --70.128.115.70 10:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well cant spell ever heard of that geez what stopped you from reading it and knowing what it ment you guys are geting weard--Butterrum 18:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He brought it up partly due to the fact that he probably couldn't understand it, and how can that be weird??? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Take 2 sues jack thopson

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/13027/Take-Two-Strikes-Back-Sues-Jack-Thompson/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.92.202 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

thnis might get him off R* lol--Butterrum 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)